Technical Report

NREL/TP-560-45406

Revised February 2010

Manufacturing Readiness 

Assessment for Fuel Cell Stacks 

and Systems for the Back-up 

Power and Material Handling 

Equipment Emerging Markets 

D. Wheeler and M. Ulsh
ERRATA SHEET

NREL REPORT/PROJECT NUMBER: NREL/TP-560-45406 / H2791191

TITLE: Manufacturing Readiness Assessment for Fuel Cell Stacks and Systems for the 

Back-up Power and Material Handling Equipment Emerging Markets

AUTHOR(S): D. Wheeler and M. Ulsh

ORIGINAL PUBLICATION DATE: May 2009

DATE OF CORRECTIONS (MM/YYYY): 02/2010

The following corrections were made to this report/document:

(List page number, paragraph number, sentence number, etc. of each change made to the 

original document)

1. Page 26, section 7.1.1, the last word on the page was changed from Figure 3. to 

Figure 4.

2. Page 27, first paragraph, first sentence, Figure 3. was changed to Figure 4.

3. Page 28, Figure 4, the actual graph was changed. It was originally the wrong 

graph.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-560-45406

Revised February 2010

Manufacturing Readiness 

Assessment for Fuel Cell Stacks 

and Systems for the Back-up 

Power and Material Handling 

Equipment Emerging Markets 

D. Wheeler and M. Ulsh

Prepared under Task No. H2791191
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Executive Summary

The Department of Energy’s Hydrogen, Fuel Cell, and Infrastructure Technologies 

(HFCIT) Program has successfully supported and guided the advancement of fuel cell 

and hydrogen technologies for the 80-kW direct hydrogen automotive power system. 

Importantly, the HFCIT Program-funded cost projections for automotive fuel cell power 

systems forecast the automotive polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell cost in 

the range $60/kW1 to $80/kW2 based on anticipated manufacturing advancements at a 

proposed production rate of 500,000 80-kW PEM automotive fuel cells per year. Federal 

cost incentive scenarios do not forecast automotive fuel cell production to reach 500,000 

vehicles for at least another ten years3.

The HFCIT Program supports the creation of a North American domestic manufacturing 

base and ramping-up of production capacity via its Market Transformation activity. This 

activity assists federal agencies in transitioning to fuel cell and other renewable energy 

technologies as required by EPACT 2005 and Executive Order 134234

. Expanded federal 

fuel cell use will create market stimulus to assist manufacturers in the transition to higher 

volume production methods (thereby reducing unit cost). Market transformation for 

commercializing PEM fuel cell systems for backup power applications and materials 

handling equipment (MHE) is strongly supported by the HFCIT Program-commissioned 

market analyses performed by Battelle5, 6

DOE can use Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) to address the economic and 

institutional risks associated with a ramp-up in PEM production. According to the HFCIT 

Program’s Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan

. The Federal government’s requirements for 

backup power for FAA applications and MHE at Department of Defense Depots, 

establishes a demand that can lead this hydrogen-based technology’s market 

transformation.

Transforming the PEM fuel cell market requires transitioning from a prototype to a 

design-stable, application-ready PEM power system. Manufacturing processes will need 

to be developed and qualified for high-rate production of durable and reliable PEM fuel 

cell systems for commercial, real-life backup power, and materials handling applications. 

A successful market transformation investment will need to minimize the risks inherent 

in the development of new manufacturing processes for emerging technology. 

7

In response to the HFCIT Program’s assessment, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) has initiated an activity to address the need to understand the current 

status and associated risk levels of the PEM fuel cell industry. This activity is initially 

(MYPP), 

“Investment risk of developing manufacturing capability for hydrogen and fuel cell 

technologies is high.”

“Investment risk of developing manufacturing capability for hydrogen 

and fuel cell technologies is high.”

-U.S. Department of Energy HFCIT MYPP
iv

focused on the back-up power and MHE emerging markets. The followings steps detail 

NREL’s methodology.

1. NREL assessed the extensive existing hierarchy of MRLs developed by Department 

of Defense (DoD)8

2. The MRLs developed by NREL for DOE specifically address the pre-automotive, 

near-term manufacturing of PEM fuel cell systems. NREL’s approach for the DOE 

PEM MRLs is distinguished from the DoD definition of MRLs by the incorporation 

of market data, the focus on near-term pre-automotive PEM manufacturing, and the 

use of industry self-assessment to establish the MRL. While the DoD approach 

focuses on procurement, the DOE MRL process addresses development of a PEM 

manufacturing base.

and other Federal entities, and developed a MRL scale adapted to 

the needs of the HFCIT program and to the status of the fuel cell industry.

3. NREL, again adapting from the existing DoD formality and adjusting for emerging 

PEM pre-automotive applications, developed a Manufacturing Readiness Assessment 

(MRA) with detailed questions to assess the maturity and illuminate the risk factors 

of a manufacturer’s overall manufacturing capability. This detailed assessment was 

then condensed into a questionnaire form that was used by the manufacturers and 

NREL to establish the MRL levels of the each manufacturer.

4. Each manufacturer performed a MRA self-assessment using the NREL questionnaire. 

NREL then visited each manufacturing site, and with the manufacturer, developed 

consensus MRLs and performed an independent assessment of manufacturing 

readiness.

The benefits of this ongoing activity to the HFCIT Program, the Market Transformation 

activity, and to industry, are summarized in Figure ES-1.
v

Figure ES- 1: Benefits to HFCIT, market transformation, and industry

Manufacturing Readiness Levels

The ten MRLs shown in Table ES-1 demonstrate the increase in manufacturing maturity 

required to transition to the next higher level. The MRLs range from a “Feasibility 

Assessment” to “Full Rate Production Demonstrated.” The MRL definitions are more 

stringent at the higher levels, reflecting the increased complexity of the manufacturing 

requirements during the transition to Full Rate Production (FRP).

The level of production defined as FRP, which is the level of production required to 

support a mature market, is product and application specific. For FAA tower emergency 

backup power and forklift truck PEM power systems, the FRPs are 1,700 units/year and 

~5,000 units/year, respectively. These values are based on the HFCIT Program Market 

Analyses conducted by Battelle5,6. At MRL – 7, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) is 

defined as the level of production of PEM fuel cell systems or stacks that supports market 

entry. LRIP is also product and application specific. Based on fuel cell industry 

interviews and the most recent market information generated by Battelle and inputs from 

industry, NREL defines LRIP as 1,000 units / year.

The Battelle analysis for FAA tower emergency backup power assumes an instantaneous 

75% penetration into the replacement market. This level of penetration is considered to 

Benefits

• A metric for reporting status against HFCIT 

manufacturing goals

• Information on weaknesses and risk areas in the 

overall manufacturing capability of the industry, which 

may reveal opportunities for future manufacturing 

R&D funding

• Aggregate reporting of industry status, which enables 

information to be gathered that may otherwise be 

difficult to obtain, due to Intellectual Property and 

competitive reasons

• An unbiased and comparative assessment, based on 

a standard set of metrics, of a manufacturer’s entire 

manufacturing enterprise

• A metric that enables HFCIT Market Transformation 

decision makers to identify optimal entry (“jump-in”) 

and exit (“jump-out”) points for supporting a particular 

fuel cell market, based on the maturity of the 

manufacturing capability to address that market

• An anonymous assessment of a manufacturer’s 

capability compared to its peers
vi

be high based on industry input. Industry anticipates the year one market entry to be 

several hundred units growing to 1,000 units per year over a two year period, i.e. growing 

to the LRIP value. The industry production numbers are consistent with present 

purchases.

For the forklift truck applications, Battelle identified the Defense Logistic Agency and 

the US Postal Service as early adaptors of this technology with initial replacement 

purchases of 472 units per year. Penetration into the forklift truck replacement market 

was 20% for all but the Class 2, narrow-aisle, high-reach forklifts, which have a 5% 

penetration into the replacement market. The market entry of 1,000 units per year for 

LRIP was confirmed during interviews with forklift PEM power systems manufacturers. 

Table ES -1: Manufacturing Readiness Levels8

MRL - 1 Manufacturing Feasibility Assessed

MRL - 2 Manufacturing Concepts Defined

MRL - 3 Manufacturing Concepts Developed

MRL - 4 Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration

MRL - 5 Manufacturing Process Development

MRL - 6 Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped

MRL - 7 Prototype Manufacturing System

MRL - 8 Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration

MRL - 9 Manufacturing Processes Proven

MRL - 10 Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place

Risk Elements

The MRLs are further broken down into risk elements, which identify nine specific risk 

areas to be assessed as the manufacturing process matures. The risk elements are 

consistent for all the MRLs, but the assessment questions of the risk elements change as a 

more sophisticated manufacturing capability, and higher MRL ranking, is achieved. The 

risk elements are:

1. Technology & the Industrial Base

2. Design

3. Materials

4. Cost & Funding

5. Process Capability and Control
vii

6. Quality Management

7. Manufacturing Personnel

8. Facilities

9. Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

The NREL-developed MRA process is built on the MRLs and their associated risk 

elements. The MRA was condensed into a family of questions for each of the nine risk 

elements to facilitate ease of response by industry. NREL worked with the PEM 

manufacturers Hydrogenics, Inc., Nuvera, Inc., Plug Power, Inc., and Protonex, Inc. to 

validate the MRA. These four companies conducted MRA self-assessments using the 

NREL questionnaire applied to the following three manufacturing categories:

1. Emergency backup power PEM power systems and Auxiliary Power Units (APUs): 

Hydrogenics, Plug Power, & Protonex

2. Forklift Truck PEM power systems: - Hydrogenics, Nuvera, & Plug Power

3. PEM Cell Stack Manufacture: - Hydrogenics, Nuvera, Plug Power, & Protonex

MRA of Emergency Backup Power & APUs

The aggregate and consensus MRA self-assessment data for backup power & APUs are 

graphically represented in Figure ES-2.

The PEM emergency backup power & APU industry has not achieved LRIP. The lowest 

rated risk element is “Personnel,” which includes preparing training programs for 

manufacturing, preparing the trainers, developing the instruction and skill of 

manufacturing personnel, and verifying their skill during pilot line production. The 

ranking range for Personnel is MRL – 4 to MRL – 6. The MRL - 4 rating of the risk 

element Personnel reflects the emphasis of the industry on development and 

demonstration of a prototype design. The transition from laboratory prototype to pilot 

line production will require personnel training. The Design risk element is rated at LRIP 

(High rating) or ready for LRIP (Low rating), signifying there are either no design 

changes or the design changes have decreased and are minimal. By validating the design 

of emergency backup power and APU systems, the market demand becomes the driving 

force for increasing manufacturing readiness. 
viii

Figure ES-2: Aggregate consensus MRLs for PEM power systems for emergency backup 

power & APUs

MRA of Forklift Truck Power Systems

The aggregate and consensus MRA self-assessment data for the forklift power systems 

are graphically represented in Figure ES-3.

Figure ES -3: Aggregate consensus MRLs for PEM power systems for forklift trucks

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

APU & Backup Power System Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

Risk Elements

MRL Level

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

Forklift Fuel Cell Power System Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

Risk Elements

MRL Level
ix

The manufacturing readiness based on the aggregate data indicates that the PEM power 

system industry for forklift trucks has a broad range of risk element rankings. The lowest 

ranked risk element is Cost & Funding

MRA of Cell Stack Manufacture

The aggregate and consensus MRA self-assessment data for the cell stack manufacture 

are graphically represented in Figure ES-4.

The risk element 

, although its ranking covers a span of three 

MRLs: MRL – 4 to MRL – 7.

Cost & Funding

Figure ES-4: Aggregate consensus MRLs for PEM cell stack manufacturing

The risk element 

covers the range MRL – 5 to MRL – 8. The companies 

with the lower rating emphasized the development and demonstration of the prototype 

design and are only beginning to implement cost reduction programs. Some of the riskelement criteria have been met; e.g. make / buy programs have been initiated, while other 

risk elements such as cost controls on the suppliers and subcontractors have not been 

achieved. The poor cost control by the suppliers may be resolved as increasing 

production volumes provide leverage.

Quality covers the range MRL – 6 to MRL - 8 and identifies that final 

quality and reliability levels for some stack manufacturers have not been established. In 

addition, the quality and reliability requirements have not been set for the suppliers and 

subcontractors. The risk element Quality can be easily elevated to MRL – 7 (“ready for 

LRIP”) because the ranking of the two risk elements Design and Materials are both at 

MRL – 8 (“operating at LRIP”) and further developmental activity for these two high 

ranking elements has been completed. The design and materials are fixed.

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

Stack Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Risk Elements Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

MRL Level
x

Conclusions

The NREL-developed MRA brought into focus the manufacturing risks associated with 

achieving LRIP of 1,000 PEM systems per year. Four important conclusions resulted 

from the companies’ self-assessments and NREL’s assessment of the manufacturing 

status:

1. Based on the reported company time-study assessments, PEM companies are 

confident their manufacturing approaches can achieve LRIP of 1,000 forklift truck 

PEM power systems per year. The companies are not at the 1,000 unit LRIP today for 

forklift PEM power systems. Based on current market demand, actual production 

rates are currently in the range of 200-300 units per year.

2. Based on the reported company time-study assessments, PEM companies are 

confident their manufacturing approaches can achieve LRIP of 1,000 power systems 

per year for Emergency Backup Power & APUs. The companies are not at the 1,000

unit LRIP today. Based on current market demand, actual production rates are 

currently in the range of 200-300 units per year.

3. The Manufacturing Readiness for cell stacks is the most advanced of the three 

manufacturing capabilities assessed. There was a high level of risk for stack 

development for staffing and training of production personnel. Importantly, costs of 

the cell stack also represent a risk. Because the cell stack is an integral and 

dominating component of PEM systems, resolving these two risk issues, Personnel 

and Cost, is critical for companies to achieve FRP.

4. The risk elements Cost & Funding, Personnel, and Quality had lower rankings for 

forklift truck, emergency backup power, and APU applications. NREL considers 

these low ranking risk elements to be representative of the transition from PEM 

prototype development to a stable, commercial PEM system design. The 

establishment of a stable PEM design changes the emphasis from demonstration to 

high rate quality production of a cost competitive PEM system by trained personnel.

Recommendations

Based on the MRAs performed with the four manufacturers active in the back-up power 

and MHE emerging markets for PEM fuel cells, NREL provides the following 

recommendations:

Recommendations Based on the Manufacturing Readiness Assessments

• Two risk elements with poor rankings identified by the MRAs of the three 

applications (forklift trucks, emergency backup power and APUs), are Cost & 

Funding and Personnel

o Increasing the market demand will provide the impetus for fuel cell manufacturers 

to increase production staff, implement training programs, and resolve and 

improve the ranking of the 

. The major barrier for both of these risk elements is market 

demand. 

Personnel risk element. Market transformation 

programs that identify mission structure applications for fuel cells are 

designed to increase market demand and are recommended.
xi

o The present platinum content combined with the cost of platinum catalyst causes a 

high initial purchase price for PEM fuel cells. Research and development 

support to lower the catalyst content and drive down the initial purchase 

price of fuel cells is recommended.

• The risk element Quality is the third common problem area identified by the MRAs. 

The cell stack and fuel cell system conditioning process is costly, time consuming, 

and requires expensive testing equipment. In-line, continuous quality control 

measurements are rare and not fully developed for the assembly of cell stacks and 

fuel cell systems, as well as for the production of cell components. Quality control 

methodology for stack component inspection and reduction of cell stack and fuel 

cell system conditioning time are a recommended area for DOE support.

Programmatic Recommendations

• The MRA provides an assessment of the progress of a manufacturer toward LRIP and 

FRP for a given market segment, using a standard methodology that can lead to 

comparative and agglomerate analyses of the industry. The evaluation of LRIP for an 

emerging market and the assessment of a manufacturer’s ability to produce at LRIP 

can be used as “jump-in”/ “jump-out” criteria for Market Transformation decision 

makers. An ongoing MRL assessment activity should be established to support 

the HFCIT Market Transformation activity. Participation in this activity should 

be a requirement for all co-funded demonstration activities, so that unbiased, 

comparative assessments can be made.

• The MRA of Ballard cell stacks for the backup power and MHE markets is an 

important metric of fuel cell stack manufacturing, and should be included as a 

follow-on activity to this report if possible.

• Manufacturing processes for bipolar plates and membrane-electrode-assembly (MEA) 

components are critical, time consuming, and costly. Manufacturing rates for the 

MEAs and bipolar plates need to be up to 25 times greater than stack manufacturing 

rates. The manufacturing readiness of the cell components is critical to the 

commercialization of PEM fuel cells and should be assessed as a follow-on 

activity of this report.

• Assessing automotive cell component and stack manufacture introduces a new level 

of quality and cost control. Over 200 million MEAs would need to be manufactured 

annually or 400 MEAs per minute for automotive applications. The MRA of 

automotive cell component and cell stack manufacturing is critical to forecasting 

the entry of PEM fuel cell powered vehicles.
xii

Contents

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................iii

Manufacturing Readiness Levels.................................................................................... v

Risk Elements................................................................................................................ vi

MRA of Emergency Backup Power & APUs............................................................... vii

MRA Forklift Truck Power Systems...........................................................................viii

MRA of Cell Stack Manufacture ................................................................................... ix

Conclusions..................................................................................................................... x

Recommendations........................................................................................................... x

Recommendations Based on the Manufacturing Readiness Assessments.................. x

Programmatic Recommendations.............................................................................. xi

1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 About this Report ................................................................................................. 3

2 NREL’s MRL Activity ............................................................................................... 4

2.1 Manufacturing Readiness Levels, Technology Readiness Levels, and the 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment............................................................................ 4

2.2 NREL Activity and Benefits of the MRL Assessment Process........................... 6

3 Manufacturing Readiness Levels................................................................................ 9

4 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment...................................................................... 12

5 Assessment of Low Rate Initial Production.............................................................. 19

5.1 Emergency Backup Power ................................................................................. 20

5.2 Forklift Trucks.................................................................................................... 21

6 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: Industry Status ........................................... 23

6.1 Hydrogenics, Corp. ............................................................................................ 23

6.1.1 Hydrogenics Forklift Trucks....................................................................... 24

6.1.2 Hydrogenics Backup Power........................................................................ 24

6.2 Plug Power, Inc. ................................................................................................. 24

6.2.1 Plug Power Backup Power.......................................................................... 24

6.2.2 Plug Power Forklift Trucks......................................................................... 25

6.3 Nuvera Fuel Cells............................................................................................... 25

6.3.1 Nuvera Forklift Trucks ............................................................................... 25

6.4 Protonex Technology Corporation..................................................................... 25

6.4.1 Protonex Auxiliary Power Unit .................................................................. 25

6.4.2 Protonex Backup Power.............................................................................. 25

7 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: System Manufacturing............................... 26

7.1 Fuel Cell Systems for Forklift Trucks................................................................ 26

7.1.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs......................................... 26

7.1.2 NREL Assessment ...................................................................................... 29

7.2 Backup Power and APU Fuel Cell Systems....................................................... 29

7.2.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs......................................... 30

7.2.2 NREL Assessment ...................................................................................... 32

8 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: Stack Manufacturing.................................. 33

8.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs for Cell stack Production....... 33

8.2 NREL Assessment.............................................................................................. 35

9 Key Barriers to Achieving Low Rate Initial Production .......................................... 35
xiii

10 Conclusions: Manufacturing Readiness Assessment PEM Stacks and Systems...... 36

11 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 38

11.1 Recommendations based on the manufacturing readiness assessments......... 38

11.2 Programmatic Recommendations................................................................... 38

12 References................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix A: HFCIT Technology Readiness Levels 

Appendix B: MRLs 5-10 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications (Fuel Cell Stacks and 

Systems)

Appendix C: PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems Industry Interview Questions

Acronyms 

APC American Power Conversion

APUs Auxiliary Power Units

BOP Balance of plant 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPACT Energy Policy Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Association

FRP Full Rate Production

HFCIT Hydrogen, Fuel Cell, and Infrastructure Technologies 

IPT Integrated Product Teams

JIT “Just In Time”

LRIP Low Rate Initial Production

MRA Manufacturing Readiness Assessment 

MRLs Manufacturing Readiness Levels 

MHE Materials Handling Equipment 

MEA Membrane Electrode Assembly 
xiv

MYPP Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PEM Polymer Electrolyte Membrane

R&D Research & Development

TRLs Technology Readiness Levels

VRLA Valve Regulated Lead Acid
1 

1 Introduction

The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Hydrogen, Fuel Cell, and Infrastructure 

Technologies (HFCIT) Program has successfully supported and guided the advancement 

of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies for the 80-kW direct hydrogen automotive power 

system. Ahead of 2008 forecasts, the HFCIT Program reported surpassing the 5,000 hour 

membrane durability target for 20109. Importantly, the 2008 HFCIT Program-funded cost 

projections for automotive fuel cell power systems forecast automotive polymer 

electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell costs in the range $60/kW1 to $802/kW based on 

anticipated manufacturing advancements at a proposed production rate of 500,000 80-kW 

PEM automotive fuel cell systems per year. Today, the projected PEM cost at high 

volume production is approaching the HFCIT Program target for 2010; $45/kW. 

However, due to the required production capacities and the long-term commitment 

necessary to ensure the logical coordinated roll-out of a hydrogen-fueling infrastructure 

and fuel cell vehicles, a large-scale market is still a number of years away. Even the most 

favorable federal cost incentive scenarios do not project manufacturing production to 

reach 500,000 vehicles for over ten years.3

The success of the HFCIT Program research and development efforts will accelerate the 

PEM fuel cell transition from laboratory demonstration to pre-automotive applications. 

As Greene10 succinctly concludes, “the non-automotive fuel cell industry in North 

America appears to be at a critical point” where industry can begin commercialization of 

PEM fuel cells for backup power applications and materials handling equipment. The 

applications identified by Greene10 reference the HFCIT-sponsored market analyses of 

Mahadevan et al.5,6 of Battelle. Mahadevan concludes that a federal requirement for PEM 

use in backup power and materials handling equipment (MHE) can lead the market 

transformation for PEM fuel cell systems. Such federal government requirements would 

increase production from the current industry-wide production of hundreds of PEM 

systems per year to several thousands of PEM systems per year. Greene10 and Mahadevan 

et al5, 6

 acknowledge that manufacturing processes will need to be developed and 

qualified to provide reliable PEM fuel cell systems in the backup power and MHE 

applications at production rates of several thousands of PEM systems per year.

The HFCIT Program is supporting emerging market opportunities for pre-automotive fuel 

cell applications. This support is based on an understanding of the long-term 

development needs for fuel cell vehicles to become an economically viable solution to 

the environmental issues associated with high carbon dioxide producing fuels11. The 

HFCIT Program supports the creation of a North American domestic manufacturing base 

and ramping-up of production capacity. HFCIT’s support is provided by the Program’s 

Market Transformation activity, which seeks to create market stimulus to assist 

manufacturers in transitioning to higher volume production methods (and the resulting 

reduced unit cost). The Market Transformation activities assist federal agencies in 

transitioning to fuel cell and other renewable energy technologies to meet EPACT 2005 

and Executive Order requirements4

. Figure 1 illustrates the goals of the Market 

Transformation activity via the well-known economy of scale curve for fuel cells. 
2 

Figure 1: Schematic of fuel cell cost increasing with volume

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) address the economic and institutional risks 

that are associated with a ramp-up in PEM production and have been identified in the 

HFCIT Program Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan7 (MYPP). 

According to the MYPP, “Investment risk of developing manufacturing capability for 

hydrogen and fuel cell technologies is high.” 

The MRLs are standard metrics for measuring the risks associated with manufacturing a 

commercial product. The Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) is a process that 

uses MRLs to concisely appraise the readiness of an industry to deliver a mature product 

for commercial applications. The MRA supports Market Transformation by reducing risk 

for the transition from the laboratory to industrial, real world applications. The MRA is 

used to gauge the status of production processes and production costs of an emerging 

technology using a standard set of measures that include the critical metrics required for a 

technology to move to the market. The MRA enables HFCIT program managers to make 

informed funding decisions by quantifying the manufacturing maturity and minimizing 

the risk associated with introducing new PEM fuel cell technology into the market place. 

“Investment risk of developing manufacturing capability for hydrogen 

and fuel cell technologies is high.”

- U.S. Department of Energy HFCIT MYPP
3 

The MRLs developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for DOE 

specifically address the pre-automotive, near-term manufacturing of PEM fuel cell 

systems. NREL’s approach for the DOE PEM MRLs is distinguished from the 

Department of Defense (DoD) definition of MRLs and the DoD MRA process by the 

incorporation of market data, the focus on near-term pre-automotive PEM manufacturing, 

and the use of industry self-assessment to establish the MRL. While the DoD approach 

focuses on government acquisition, the DOE MRL process addresses the development of

a PEM fuel cell manufacturing base in a consumer-driven market. 

1.1 About this Report

The purpose of this report is to discuss an assessment of MRLs of fuel cell manufacturers

and the value of this information to DOE and industry. The report will provide 

information gathered recently by NREL on the readiness of selected fuel cell

manufacturers to produce at rates that will support emerging fuel cell markets, which, 

ultimately, could provide the economic stability to make future improvements in 

manufacturing capacity that will lead to the viability of fuel cell vehicles. 

The report is composed of the following sections: 

Section 1 will introduce the background and need for an ongoing assessment of MRLs. 

Section 2 will describe NREL’s activity in preparing for this assessment and NREL’s 

process for MRL assessment.

Section 3 will introduce the concept and uses of MRLs. 

Section 4 will explain the MRA and the tools developed to perform the MRA.

Section 5 will use the Battelle reports5,6 to show the production levels required for 

emerging fuel cell markets, and how these levels relate to MRLs.

Section 6 will introduce the fuel cell manufacturers active in the back-up power and 

MHE markets.

Section 7 will provide the manufacturer’s MRL self-assessments and NREL’s assessment 

of manufacturing readiness for backup power, APU, and forklift truck PEM power 

systems.

Section 8 will provide the manufacturer’s MRL self-assessments and NREL’s assessment 

of manufacturing readiness for PEM cell stacks.

Section 9 will present key barriers to achieving necessary production rates identified 

during the MRAs.

Section 10 will present conclusions.

Section 11 will present recommendations.
4 

2 NREL’s MRL Activity

NREL supports the DOE Hydrogen Program’s HFCIT Program in the areas of 

manufacturing assessment, manufacturing research, and development (R&D), and market 

transformation. In 2005, NREL and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) assisted the DOE and industry in developing the DOE Roadmap on 

Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy.12 This roadmap documented the 

barriers to high volume production of fuel cells and led toward HFCIT’s current activities 

in manufacturing R&D. Then, in 2007, NREL, with substantial input from industry 

interviews, published an analysis of the manufacturing status of the U.S. PEM fuel cell 

industry titled, “2007 Status of Manufacturing: Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) 

Fuel Cells.”13

• 2010: Complete development of standards for metrology of PEM fuel cells. 

 NREL’s activities in these areas supported the HFCIT Program’s progress 

toward meeting their milestones. The HFCIT milestones supported by these works are: 

• 2011: Demonstrate pilot scale, high volume manufacturing processes for highpressure composite tanks.

• 2012: Develop continuous in-line measurement for MEA fabrication.

• 2012: Demonstrate pilot scale processes for manufacturing bipolar plates. 

• 2013: Establish models to predict the effect of manufacturing variations on MEA 

performance.

• 2013: Demonstrate pilot scale processes for assembling stacks.

2.1 Manufacturing Readiness Levels, Technology Readiness Levels, and 

the Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

NREL is supporting the HFCIT milestones by developing a risk-based measure of an 

industry’s ability to transition from R&D activities to commercialization and delivery of 

a mature product with established performance and durability characteristics. NREL 

developed MRLs for DOE that would define the status of PEM pre-automotive 

manufacturing. The DOE MRLs are metrics to gauge the progress of the PEM industry in 

its market transformation from R&D to commercialization. The DOE MRLs were 

designed to address emerging manufacturing processes that would be the precursors to 

large scale manufacturing of PEM fuel cell systems for the light vehicle market.

The NREL approach to the MRL development activity followed two parallel paths; 

shown graphically in Figure 2. Path 1 combined the established MRL activities of the 

DoD8

 with the stage/gate process used by industry14 and the Technology Readiness 

Levels (TRLs) developed for PEM systems by the DOE.15 Path 1 of the effort developed 

definitions of risk associated with the transition to PEM manufacturing. Path 2 combined 

the results of the DOE-funded PEM market assessment5, 6 with market information from 

industry interviews. The Path 2 process was augmented with the HFCIT Program’s 

identification of manufacturing gaps13. The Path 2 approach developed the Near-Term 

Low Rate Initial Production definition. 
5 

Integrating the results of the Path 1 and Path 2 activities defined the Near-Term PEM 

MRL definitions, as shown in Figure 2. The near-term MRLs form the basis for the 

MRA. An important feature of the NREL-developed MRA is the concept of industry selfassessment using the DOE PEM MRLs. The self-assessment MRA by industry and the 

MRA conducted by NREL highlight the areas of manufacturing development that need 

growth and assistance.

NREL’s approach for the DOE PEM MRLs is distinguished from the DoD definition of 

MRLs and the DoD MRA process by the incorporation of market data, the focus on nearterm pre-automotive PEM manufacturing, and the use of industry self-assessment to 

establish the MRLs. While the DoD approach focuses on procurement, the DOE PEM 

MRL process addresses development of a PEM manufacturing base.

Figure 2: Process used by NREL to develop Manufacturing Readiness Levels for DOE 

near-term PEM fuel cells

DOE / INDUSTRY

MRA

DOE NEAR-TERM

PEM

DEFINITION

OF

MRLs

DOE PEM

DEFINTIONS

OF

RISK ELEMENTS

DOE

NEAR-TERM

PEM LRIP

DEFINITION

PEM TRLs

DEVELOPED BY

DOE

DOD MRL & MRA

INDUSTRY

STAGE/GATE 

PROCESS

DOE

NEAR-TERM

PEM MARKET

ASSESSMENT

INDUSTRY

MARKET INPUTS

DOE PEM

MANUFACTURING

GAP ANALYSIS

DOE / INDUSTRY

MRA

DOE NEAR-TERM

PEM

DEFINITION

OF

MRLs

DOE PEM

DEFINTIONS

OF

RISK ELEMENTS

DOE

NEAR-TERM

PEM LRIP

DEFINITION

PEM TRLs

DEVELOPED BY

DOE

DOD MRL & MRA

INDUSTRY

STAGE/GATE 

PROCESS

DOE

NEAR-TERM

PEM MARKET

ASSESSMENT

INDUSTRY

MARKET INPUTS

DOE PEM

MANUFACTURING

GAP ANALYSIS
6 

The NREL-developed MRLs evaluate a broad range of manufacturing, planning, 

personnel, quality, and financial aspects of a supplier’s production capability. A key 

function of MRLs is to assess industry’s ability to manufacture at two production rates 

whose value is defined by the specific market being addressed by the product. These two 

production rates are: 

Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP): This is the first stage of production and represents a 

transition from the production of a one-of-a-kind design to production of a product with 

established, fixed design manufacturing processes that are repeatable, have a high yield, 

have controlled costs, and have a high level of quality control. In many cases, LRIP is the 

manufacturing level associated with pilot plant production. 

Full Rate Production (FRP):

2.2 NREL Activity and Benefits of the MRL Assessment Process

 In this stage of production, manufactured systems and 

components fulfill all engineering, performance, quality, and reliability requirements. 

Production rate, production costs, and material costs fulfill all cost goals. System design, 

component designs, and manufacturing processes are fixed and under “change control.” 

Lean manufacturing processes are established and continuous process improvement 

procedures have been implemented. Manufacturing is in a sustainment phase with 

products meeting the requirements of a maturing market.

The ability of MRLs to assess the readiness of the entire manufacturing enterprise 

relative to the LRIP and FRP production levels makes the MRL an extremely valuable 

tool that benefits the HFCIT’s activities, including market transformation. Section 5 

provides an assessment of LRIP for the back-up power and MHE markets. 

Manufacturing readiness closely parallels technology readiness. A general requirement of 

MRLs is that they cannot be more advanced than Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 

since a key element for manufacturing readiness is the establishment of a fixed design 

and elimination of design changes. To achieve a fixed design, the technology 

development process must reach a mature level. The close association of MRLs with 

TRLs requires that standard definitions be developed for the MRLs and TRLs. The 

dependence of MRLs on TRLs is properly achieved when the TRLs define a systematic 

set of metrics that calibrate the maturity of the technology.

The MRA is the process for assessing the risk and maturity of a company’s 

manufacturing capability. The MRA determines the status of manufacturing toward 

achieving milestone production rates. It defines and facilitates the management of risk 

and calibrates the status of a manufacturing process using the standards established as 

MRLs. The end goal of an MRA is to define activities by either identifying weaknesses in 

the manufacturing process or concurring with the transition to LRIP or, for advanced 

manufacturing efforts, the transition to FRP.

In order to evaluate MRLs for fuel cell markets, NREL reviewed existing resources for 

MRLs, TRLs, and the MRA processes to assess their viability for meeting the needs of 

the HFCIT program. NREL determined the DoD MRLs and MRA process covered a very 
7 

broad range of equipment and weapons acquisition with early deployment of systems, 

and the process was so broad that specificity to PEM manufacturing was difficult to 

assign. Additionally, the DoD assessment process did not use independent companybased assessments.

TRLs specific to PEM fuel cell systems were previously developed by the HFCIT 

Program. These TRLs were readily adapted to the MRLs developed by NREL. Section 3 

details the MRLs developed by NREL for fuel cell emerging markets. Section 4 describes 

the process and tools NREL developed for the MRA. The HFCIT fuel cell TRLs are 

given in Appendix A. 

MRLs are reporting metrics that identify the strengths and weaknesses of the 

manufacturing capability of the industry. A two-stage MRA was developed by NREL to 

assess the PEM manufacturing industry. Industry conducted their own MRA using the 

MRLs defined by the NREL process for the first stage of the assessment. NREL 

conducted an independent assessment by interviewing industry in the second stage of the 

assessment. The second stage required agreements with each manufacturer for full review 

and concurrence with the MRA results, and total anonymity (other than the fact that they 

were visited). The second stage agreement opened the door for information which may

otherwise have been difficult for HFCIT to obtain because of Intellectual Property and 

the competitive nature of the PEM fuel cell business. Most importantly, the two-stage 

assessment process yields an unbiased and comparative assessment of manufacturing 

readiness – not only of production capacity, but a broad review of the systems that need 

to be in place to support manufacturing. A critical feature of the two-stage assessment is 

the standard set of metrics employed by both industry and NREL; these standard metrics 

normalize the data when reviewing multiple companies.

Having established tools specific to fuel cells, NREL then performed MRAs with fuel 

cell manufacturers active in the back-up power and materials handling equipment fuel 

cell markets. NREL’s approach provided implicit feedback on the quality of the MRLs 

because of the close industry interaction. The process for assessing MRLs had three 

steps:

1. Manufacturers evaluated the NREL-developed MRLs and used them to determine 

their position on the MRL scale.

2. NREL visited the manufacturers to obtain consensus on the MRLs and to develop 

an independent assessment of manufacturing readiness.

• NREL provided the manufacturers with a final version of the MRL scores 

and its independent assessment.

• The manufacturers provided comments and corrections, and approved the 

information for submission to DOE. 

3. NREL provided the HFCIT Program with a final report summarizing the MRAs 

in a manner that maintains the anonymity of data specific to each individual 

manufacturer.
8 

The discussion above highlights many of the benefits of the NREL MRA process to 

DOE. Of key importance is the development of tools and methods that support the goals 

of the Market Transformation activity. In particular, an ongoing MRL assessment activity 

provides information that can be used as a “jump-in”/ “jump-out” metric16 for market 

transformation funding. For example, an emerging market with a low market entry 

volume would waste market transformation time and funding by supporting a 

manufacturing effort for a market that is too immature. On the other hand, as a market 

matures, manufacturers will be motivated to increase capacity based on normal market 

demand, and thus market transformation support would be superfluous. Thus, an optimal 

range of manufacturing readiness, for a particular emerging market, can be identified 

using MRAs and market analysis. The bounds of this optimal range can define jump-in 

and jump-out points for market transformation support. An understanding of what LRIP 

is for a certain market, and whether a manufacturer is at an MRL that supports LRIP, is 

critical for defining the jump-in and jump out points for market transformation. 

Beyond DOE, the MRA provides industry with an unbiased, independent third party 

assessment of manufacturing strengths and weaknesses. The MRA defines a 

manufacturer’s capability relative to industry peers, and can highlight manufacturing 

deficiencies that might benefit from R&D funding. 

Benefits

• A metric for reporting status against HFCIT 

manufacturing goals

• Information on weaknesses and risk areas in the 

overall manufacturing capability of the industry, which 

may reveal opportunities for future manufacturing 

R&D funding

• Aggregate reporting of industry status, which enables 

information to be gathered that may otherwise be 

difficult to obtain, due to Intellectual Property and 

competitive reasons

• An unbiased and comparative assessment, based on 

a standard set of metrics, of a manufacturer’s entire 

manufacturing enterprise

• A metric that enables HFCIT Market Transformation 

decision makers to identify optimal entry (“jump-in”) 

and exit (“jump-out”) points for supporting a particular 

fuel cell market, based on the maturity of the 

manufacturing capability to address that market

• An anonymous assessment of a manufacturer’s 

capability compared to its peers
9 

3 Manufacturing Readiness Levels

As discussed above, MRLs are an approach to a risk-based assessment of the progress 

toward manufacturing goals. The MRLs are the underlying structure that binds a MRA to 

product commercialization and market transformation. The MRL metrics reinforce 

planning for the HFCIT Program Manufacturing R&D and Market Transformation 

activities. The role of MRL assessment is 

graphically represented in Figure 317

The MRL scales are made up of 

incremental steps that provide the criteria 

for judging the progress of a 

manufacturing R&D program toward 

full-fledged manufacturing. NREL 

prepared an MRL scale for evaluating 

PEM fuel cell stack and system 

manufacturing processes. The MRLs 

were focused on the pre-automotive 

early-adaptor PEM fuel cell back-up 

power (including auxiliary power units) 

and motive power for MHE, specifically 

forklift trucks. The primary definitions 

for the manufacturing readiness levels are 

given in Table 1. 

.

Figure 3: Role of Manufacturing 

Readiness Levels in transitioning to full 

rate production
10 

Table 1: Manufacturing Readiness Levels8

MRL Definitions

1 Manufacturing Feasibility Assessed – Top level assessment of 

feasibility based on technical concept and laboratory data.

2 Manufacturing Concepts Defined – Initiate demonstration of feasibility 

of producing a prototype system or component.

3 Manufacturing Concepts Developed – Manufacturing concepts 

identified and based on laboratory studies.

4 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing 

processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies identified to 

address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Targets set for cost as an 

independent variable, and initial cost drivers identified.

5 

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory 

experiments result in development of key manufacturing processes and 

initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in 

development. Significant engineering and design changes. Quality and 

reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated 

in the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been 

completely defined.

6 

Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped: Critical manufacturing 

processes prototyped, targets for improved yield established. Process and 

tooling mature. Frequent design changes still occur. Investment in 

machining and tooling identified. Quality and reliability levels identified. 

Design to cost goals identified. Pilot line operation demonstrated.

7 

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft 

tooling, initial sigma levels established. Ready for low rate initial 

production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling 

and inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production 

environment. Manufacturing processes generally well understood. 

Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in 

production. Manufacturing process and procedures initially demonstrated. 

Design to cost goals validated.
11 

Table 1: Manufacturing Readiness Levels8

MRL Definitions

8 

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing 

processes demonstrate acceptable yield and producibility levels for pilot 

line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well 

understood and controlled to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. 

Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should 

have completed demonstration in production environment. All materials 

are in production and readily available. Cost estimates <125% cost goals 

(e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

9 

Manufacturing Processes Proven. Manufacturing line operating at 

desired initial sigma level. Stable production. Design stable, few or no 

design changes. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or 

appropriate quality level. Affordability issues built into initial production 

and evolutionary acquisition milestones. Cost estimates <110% cost goals 

or meet cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met). Actual cost model 

developed for FRP environment, with impact of continuous improvement. 

Full rate process control concepts under development. Training and 

budget plans in place for transition to full rate production.

10 

Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in 

place The system, component or item is in full rate production. 

Technologies have matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing 

is normally associated with the Production or Sustainment phases of the 

acquisition life cycle. System, components, or items are in full rate 

production and meet all engineering, performance, quality, and reliability 

requirements. All materials, manufacturing processes and procedures, 

inspection and test equipment are in production and controlled to sixsigma or some other appropriate quality level. Rate production unit costs 

meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. Lean 

practices are well established and continuous process improvements are 

ongoing.

Each MRL is further broken down into risk elements, which identify nine specific risk 

areas to be assessed for passage from one MRL to the next. The risk elements are 

consistent for all the MRLs, but the assessment questions for each of the risk elements 

demand a more sophisticated manufacturing capability as the MRL advances.

The risk elements are given below: 

1. Technology & the Industrial Base

2.

: Analysis of the capabilities to support the 

design, development, and production of the emerging technology. 

Design: Requires an analysis system design to meet user requirements and 

incorporation of design for manufacturing rigor. 
12 

3. Materials

4.

: Requires analyses of the risks associated with materials availability, 

component availability, and sub-system availability.

Cost & Funding

5.

: Requires analyses of the current cost and full scale production 

cost and development of pathways to meet manufacturing cost goals. 

Process Capability and Control

6.

: Requires an analysis of the risk that the 

manufacturing processes may not be sufficient to produce system at required cost. 

Quality Management

7.

: Requires identification of pathways to control quality, and 

foster continuous quality improvement. 

Manufacturing Personnel

8.

: Requires the assessment of the required skills, training 

requirements, and availability of personnel to support the manufacturing effort. 

Facilities

9.

: Requires an analysis of the facility capabilities and identification of 

facility needs to support manufacturing efforts. 

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control: Requires development of 

planning schedules and control of scheduling needs to meet cost and production 

goals. 

4 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

The MRA evaluates and grasps the status of the overall manufacturing enterprise and 

assigns a MRL. The MRA delineates the maturity of the manufacturing process, the 

maturity of the system or component design, the maturity or readiness of the 

manufacturer’s personnel and facilities, and the readiness of the manufacturer to provide 

a quality product that fulfills the commercial requirements. The metrics for the 

assessment are contained in the MRLs and the risks associated with a manufacturing 

process are contained in the risk elements.

NREL developed the two-stage MRA tool for assessing the MRLs of PEM fuel cell stack 

and systems manufacturing processes. The tool incorporates a series of interviewer 

questions based on the nine risk elements previously defined. The MRA tool questions 

are designed to permit the manufacturer to confirm their status relative to the risk 

elements. A negative answer establishes the MRL relative to a specific risk element. The 

lowest MRL identified relative to the nine risk elements conservatively defines the 

manufacturing readiness of the process and concurrently identifies the highest risk for the 

manufacturer.

The second stage of the MRA is an independent assessment of the manufacturing process 

using the same metrics used by the manufacturer and is a method of corroborating the 

assessment by the manufacturer. The independent assessment involves interviews with 

company representatives and inspection of the manufacturing facilities. The NREL MRA 

tool incorporates an early dialog between manufacturer, independent assessor (NREL), 

and HFCIT. The NREL MRA tool requires the manufacturer and the independent 

assessor to reach a consensus MRL. Sections 7 and 8 present the data from both the self 

assessments and the independent assessments for back-up power and MHE fuel cell 

systems and stacks.
13 

The MRA questions used by the manufacturer and by the independent assessor to 

ascertain if the manufacturing process has reached MRL – 4 is provided in Table 2. The 

MRA questions are in the form of a worksheet with the nine risk elements and their 

evaluation questions. The MRA questions for MRLs 5 through 10 are provided in 

Appendix B. 
14 

Table 2 Manufacturing Readiness Level 4 Worksheet 8 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies 

identified to address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Cost as an independent variable targets set and initial cost drivers 

identified.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL = 4.

Manufacturing technology risks / barriers are identified.

Parts and components in pre-production form exist.

Scalable technology prototypes have been produced in laboratory.

Is there industrial support and capabilities for program?

Have subcontractors been identified?

Have the long-lead items been identified?

Risk Element - 2

Design

Does the engineering plan support manufacturing of evolving 

design?

Integrated Product Teams (IPT) have been formed and include 

manufacturing and engineering.

Is there an “Engineering Change Process?”

Is there a configuration management process with subcontractors?

Will component testing be completed for “changed” processes?

Design for Manufacturing

Have producibility engineering trade studies been initiated?

Are the component and hardware requirements established?
15 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies 

identified to address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Cost as an independent variable targets set and initial cost drivers 

identified.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 2

Design continued

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system 

and components?

System design low risk for manufacturing.

IPT guided by “Design to Cost” criteria.

Tooling design plan

Special tooling and test equipment required.

Funding requirements for special tooling been evaluated.

Risk Element - 3

Materials

Materials Standardization

Material standardization plan under development.

Material Availability & Handling

Exotic / high cost materials identified and addressed.

Initiate evaluation of material lead times and capacity issues.

Initiate material control and inventory control processes.

Environmental issues with materials identified.

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

The total system cost goals are available to the Integrated 

Production Team and used to guide the system design.
16 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies 

identified to address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Cost as an independent variable targets set and initial cost drivers 

identified.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding continued

Cost Drivers

Manufacturing cost drivers are identified.

Individual identified who is responsible for monitoring costs.

Initiate the analysis of the non-recurring capital and engineering 

costs.

Evaluate subcontractors and suppliers cost control practices.

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost reduction plan in place.

Risk Element - 5

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Key manufacturing processes been identified.

The manufacturing State-of-the-Art is identified and 

manufacturing processes that need to be developed identified.

Have key manufacturing processes been assessed in the 

laboratory?

Alternative manufacturing processes have been identified for 

critical technologies.

Pilot line build initiated.
17 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies 

identified to address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Cost as an independent variable targets set and initial cost drivers 

identified.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Initiate continuous process improvement program.

Metrology program is in place.

Sigma level analyses and variability analysis initiated.

Supply Chain Quality 

How is subcontractor quality verified?

Risk Element - 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Personnel consistent with specialty skill requirements 

are in place.

Training program necessary for specialty skills is in place.

Training programs are in place for Process Control and Quality. 

Risk Element - 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facilities are available consistent with proposed Low Rate Initial 

Production levels or are build plans in place.

Facility personnel members are part of the

Integrated Product Team?

Non-recurring costs associated with facility requirements are 

documented.
18 

Laboratory Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Manufacturing processes identified and assessed in lab. Mitigation strategies 

identified to address manufacturing/producibility shortfalls. Cost as an independent variable targets set and initial cost drivers 

identified.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

All facility resource requirements are documented.

Risk Element - 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Manufacturing strategy has been developed.

Manufacturing plan under development and will be under 

continuous review.

Manufacturing plan will be integrated with design plan and 

change control.

Subcontractor / supplier management plan is in place.

Critical schedule paths are identified.

Manufacturing control hierarchy is in place.
19 

5 Assessment of Low Rate Initial Production

An important benefit of the MRL assessment for the HFCIT Market Transformation 

activity is the ability to establish jump-in and jump-out points for financial support of a 

particular market. To do this, the volume demanded by the market must be understood, as 

well as the volume that the manufacturer is capable of producing.

NREL interviewed PEM fuel cell manufacturers and reported the results in its report, 

2007 Status of Manufacturing: Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells.13 Two 

of the manufacturing gaps for the assembly of PEM fuel cells highlighted in this report 

are:

• Gap #14 - The equipment for rapidly assembling cell stacks has not been developed 

and is a manufacturing gap. Currently, PEM cell stacks are assembled manually. 

Rapid assembly equipment does not exist. Aligning the MEAs, bipolar plates, and 

end plates is critical to preventing the buildup of stress on cells when the stack is 

placed under compressive load. 

• Gap #15 - Manufacturers also need to develop quality control methods for rapid 

alignment of cell stack components. Correlations between cell alignment and cell 

stack durability need to be established.

NREL’s interviews with PEM manufacturers established that the manufacturing gaps in 

the assembly of the cell stacks limits present production rates. 

The Battelle market analyses5,6 of PEM fuel cell systems identified emergency backup 

power and forklift trucks as market entry opportunities and estimated the volumes of fuel 

cells that would be demanded by these early market opportunities. 

The FRPs based on the Battelle analysis are product and application specific. Table 3 

identifies the market size for the two applications. Included in Table 3 is a subset of the 

forklift truck market for federal purchases by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and 

the US Postal Service. The DLA forklift truck subset is an on-going procurement and 

demonstration. 

At MRL – 7, LRIP is defined for the production of PEM fuel cell systems, and LRIP is 

product and application specific just as in the case of FRP. NREL has defined LRIP as 

1,000 units / year based on industry interviews and the most recent market information 

generated by Battelle. The Battelle analysis for FAA tower emergency backup power 

assumes an instantaneous 75% penetration into the replacement market, which is high 

based on industry input. Industry anticipates the year one market entry to be several 

hundred units growing to 1,000 units per year over a two year period, i.e. growing to the 

LRIP value. The industry production numbers are consistent with present purchases. 

For the forklift truck applications, Battelle identified the DLA and the US Postal Service 

as early adaptors of this technology with annual purchases of 472 units per year. The 

market penetration into the forklift truck replacement market was estimated to be 20% for 

all but the Class 2, narrow aisle, high reach forklifts, for which a 5% market penetration 
20 

into the replacement market was estimated. LRIP at 1,000 units per year would deliver 

forklift truck PEM systems for the early adaptor market and support commercial market 

development. The LRIP of 1,000 units per year was confirmed during industry interviews 

with forklift PEM power systems manufacturers. 

Table 3: Battelle market analyses data for Emergency Backup Power and Forklift Trucks

Market Market Size

Annual 

Replacement 

Market

Replacement Market 

for PEM Fuel Cells in 

Initial Years

Emergency Backup 

Power 19,900 2,265 1,699 

Forklift Trucks* 755,967 108,606 ~5,000

DLA USPS

Forklift Trucks 14,175 2,435 472 

* 2006 estimate based on Scenario 3 of Battelle Report; see references 5 & 6

5.1 Emergency Backup Power

The Battelle market analysis for PEM emergency backup power applications rated 

reliability and start-up time as critical performance criteria for entry into the market. 

Lifetime of the emergency backup power unit, fuel availability, and ease of use were the 

next highest-rated criteria for entry into the market. Four of the five top criteria for 

purchasing emergency backup power units are associated with the technical readiness of 

the PEM fuel cell. A critical issue for emergency backup power is the requirement to 

continually maintain 911 response services. The FAA application also demands high 

reliability to insure emergency support for air traffic management. For these reasons, 

the emergency backup power unit needs to be

The market size for the emergency backup power system places the manufacturing at 

LRIP conditions. The MRL for emergency backup power 

technically mature; at a TRL equal to 

9. 

The Battelle analysis for emergency backup power for FAA applications predicts market 

volume at greater than 1,300 units per year. This market volume requires manufacturers 

to increase their production rate to near LRIP; 1,000 units per year. 

needs to be at least MRL – 

7. 

MRL-7: Prototype Manufacturing System. 

Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. System is 

ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. 

Process tooling and inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production 

environment. Manufacturing processes generally well understood. Machines and 

tooling are proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and 

manufacturing process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals 

validated.
21 

Emergency backup power is a subset of a much larger backup power market opportunity 

that includes the commercial telecommunications market. The international commercial 

telecommunications market is growing at rapid pace, much faster than the federal market. 

Ballard Power Systems recently announced a binding agreement for ACME to purchase 

over 1,000 units in 2009 and 9,000 units in 2010.18 This single announcement by 

Ballard identifies an 8-fold increase in backup power applications compared to the 

FAA. By 2010 Ballard would need to increase the production rate from LRIP to 

FRP (> 5000 units / year for backup power).

Auxiliary power PEM fuel cells can provide an alternative source of power operating 

over the very broad power range of 3 to 30 kW. Auxiliary power has many applications 

using carbonaceous fuel. PEM fuel cell auxiliary power units (APUs) provide an 

alternative source of power when the main engine, either an internal combustion engine 

or turbine, is not operating. The APU enables high efficiency cooling, lighting, and 

communications at remote sites. Fuel Cell Today’s Niche Transport Study reports that the 

sales of fuel cell APUs for marine and leisure applications have doubled.19

5.2 Forklift Trucks

 Fuel Cell 

Today additionally reports annual sales of APUs at 7,000 units for 2008. These sales 

figures consider two types of fuel cells; PEM fuel cells operating on hydrogen or 

reformed methanol and direct methanol fuel cells; the latter are not included in the MRA. 

Estimating 30% penetration of the PEM fuel cells into the APU market establishes 

the base for APU manufacture at LRIP and the transition to FRP.

The Battelle market analysis of PEM-powered forklift trucks rated reliability, ease of use, 

and lifetime of the PEM fuel cells as all-important criteria for forklift trucks. Annual 

operating cost, fuel availability, and past experience (with PEM fuel cells) completed the 

higher rated criteria for forklift truck entry into the market. Start-up time, time between 

refueling, capital cost, and emissions in that order were the final criteria rated for market 

entry. Six of the ten criteria for purchasing the PEM powered forklift truck are associated 

with the technical readiness of the PEM fuel cell, with reliability identified as the highest 

rated criteria. The PEM fuel cell forklift trucks need to be

1. There is no government subsidy or government action to promote PEM 

commercialization in the Base Line scenario.

technically mature; at a 

TRL equal to 9.

Three scenarios for forklift truck market entry are discussed in the Battle report6

 and 

these are:

2. The Communication scenario has the government conducting outreach programs 

to supply PEM fuel cell system information to the user. The government does not 

subsidize the purchase of the PEM systems in the Communication scenario.

3. The Subsidy scenario has a government subsidy of $1,000 per kW for the PEM 

fuel cell. This represents up to a 33% reduction in fuel cell cost that can be passed 

on to the commercial customer.

The results of the scenario analyses applied to Forklift Trucks are given in Table 4. 
22 

Table 4: Results based on Battelle PEM Market Analysis 6

Specialty Vehicles

Fuel Cell Powered Forklift Trucks

Market 

Segment Base Case Communication Case Subsidy Case

Market Size 755,967 755,967 755,967

Market 

Penetration - 

%

40 40 40

Entry Market 

Size <1,000 1,000 4,000

5 year Market 

size

Annual Sales

Units

4,085 6,009 26,830

Entry Price

$/kW 3,000 3,000 3,000

5 year Price

$/kW 3,000 3,000 3,000

5 Y ear 

Replacement

Cost $

24,000 24,000 24,000

Today's Cost

$/kW >4,000 >4,000 >4,000

TRL at Market 

Entry

9 

Final form

9 

Final form

9 

Final form

Needs to be at 

MRL at Market 

Entry

9 

FRP 

9 

FRP 

9 

FRP 

The Battelle analysis predicts a high manufacturing rate for the PEM-powered forklift 

trucks during the first five years. The production rate exceeds 1,000 units per year in the 

second year of production for the Base scenario. The Subsidy scenario exceeds 

production of 4,000 PEM powered forklift trucks in the first year. The scenario 3 market 

size for forklift trucks places the manufacturing at FRP conditions. 

The market size for forklift trucks places the manufacturing at FRP conditions. The 

MRL for the forklift trucks needs to be at MRL – 9. 
23 

The DLA has an on-going PEM forklift truck demonstration program with the purpose of 

increasing energy and operational efficiency at Defense Depots. The DLA is the second 

largest warehouse operation in the United States and successful implementation of the 

program could facilitate rapid growth of the PEM-powered forklift truck market as a 

commercial enterprise. The DLA is operating fuel cell powered forklift trucks at the 

Susquehanna, PA Defense Distribution Depot, and the DLA has initiated the program at 

the Defense Distribution Depots at Warner Robbins, GA, and San Joaquin, CA. The 

Battelle analysis5 estimates the DLA would purchase 40 PEM-powered forklift trucks per 

year.

6 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: Industry Status

The leading manufacturers of PEM fuel cells for forklift trucks, backup power, and/or 

APUs in North America are: Hydrogenics Corp., Nuvera Inc., Plug Power Inc., and 

Protonex, Inc. The first three companies manufacture PEM power systems for forklift 

trucks. Hydrogenics Corp, Plug Power Inc., and Protonex Inc. manufacture backup power 

and/or APUs. These four companies were contacted and asked to participate in an MRA. 

One criterion for the MRA was that the individual MRLs would remain confidential and 

the data would be reported as agglomerate data with no specification of an individual 

companies’ manufacturing readiness. The company activities are briefly described in the 

following: 

6.1 Hydrogenics, Corp.

Hydrogenics manufactures PEM fuel cell stacks and PEM fuel cell systems and view 

their operation as a “hydrogen engine” business. Hydrogenics “sells engines that go into 

end applications.” Hydrogenics’ has two main fuel cell products: Power packs for 

forklift trucks and power packs for backup power. Hydrogenics sees integrated systems, 

composed of on-site hydrogen generation, hydrogen storage, and fuel cells for electricity 

generation, as a growth area for the company. 

MRL-9: Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in 

place.

The system, component, or item is in full rate production. Technologies have 

matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with 

the Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. System, 

components, or items are in full rate production and meet all engineering, 

performance, quality, and reliability requirements. All materials, manufacturing 

processes and procedures, and inspection and test equipment are in production 

and controlled to six-sigma or some other appropriate quality level. Rate production 

unit costs meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. 

Lean practices are well established and continuous process improvements are 

ongoing.
24 

6.1.1 Hydrogenics Forklift Trucks

Hydrogenics manufactures fuel cell power packs for forklift truck applications that 

generate up to 80 volts and 30 kW. The Hydrogenics power system is designed to replace 

batteries in electric forklift trucks and is not designed to replace internal combustion 

engines in forklift trucks. Hydrogenics delivers a complete battery replacement system 

that includes hydrogen storage, power electronics, and controls, all of which are designed 

to fit within the existing battery compartment of the forklift truck. Hydrogenics 

participates in the DLA’s forklift truck demonstration at the Defense Distribution Depot

at Warner Robins, GA. Hydrogenics’ fuel cell-powered forklifts were demonstrated at 

General Motor’s Canada assembly plant and by FedEx at Pearson International Airport in 

Toronto. Hydrogenics is working with the team of LiftOne and Engineered Solutions to 

develop a Linde fuel cell-powered lift truck.

6.1.2 Hydrogenics Backup Power

Hydrogenics’ emergency backup power systems are based on a modular design that 

generates 4, 8, and 12 kW of power. Hydrogenics markets integrated backup power 

systems for communication systems. The Hydrogenics PEM power systems are also 

marketed to equipment manufacturers and system integrators for installation in 

emergency backup power systems. Hydrogenics sells their PEM systems to American 

Power Conversion (APC) for backup power applications. The APC cabinets can supply 

up to 30 kW of power, and cabinets can be ganged together to supply up to 300 kW. APC 

has installed backup power units containing Hydrogenics’ fuel cell system at an internet 

service provider. Hydrogenics anticipates growth for their backup power systems and 

their business plan is to be a supplier to existing backup power manufacturers and deliver 

to them a high reliability fuel cell system.

6.2 Plug Power, Inc.

Plug Power (Plug) manufactures PEM fuel cell stacks and PEM fuel cell systems for 

forklift trucks, backup power, and on-site power generation. Plug builds their own stacks 

for these applications and has also established a PEM cell stack purchase agreement with 

Ballard Power Systems. The purchase agreement is a consequence of Plug’s acquisition 

of Cellex Power Products and General Hydrogen Corporation. Both Cellex and General 

Hydrogen designed PEM fuel cell power systems for forklift trucks using Ballard Power 

System cell stacks. Plug provides fuel cell systems to three markets: backup power, 

motive power, and prime power. Motive power is the fastest growing market for Plug 

Power. 

6.2.1 Plug Power Backup Power

For the backup power market, Plug sells the GenCore® system to the 

telecommunications market. The GenCore system uses hydrogen as a fuel and replaces 

valve regulated lead acid (VRLA) batteries as backup power for remote wireless 

networks. The GenCore provides extended life of up to 10 years while VRLA batteries 

tend to fail after three to five years. Plug Power’s GenCore system is competing 

internationally and they are working with telecommunications consultants India Ltd. 

Market demand in India for extended backup power is very robust and the 

telecommunications market there is reported by Plug to be growing at 4 million 

subscribers per month.
25 

6.2.2 Plug Power Forklift Trucks

For the motive market, Plug sells the GenDriveTM system for forklift truck applications 

and other industrial motive applications. The GenDrive system uses hydrogen as the fuel 

and delivers increased efficiency to warehouse operations by eliminating long recharging 

times and improving high power operation throughout the entire shift. The system is 

designed to fit seamlessly into the existing battery compartment. The GenDrive systems 

are available for pallet trucks and sit-down rider trucks. General Hydrogen, a whollyowned subsidiary of Plug Power Inc. has the task of retrofitting 20 battery-powered Class 

1 forklifts at the Defense Distribution Depot in Susquehanna, PA with General 

Hydrogen's fuel cell power packs. Cellex Power Products operated forklifts at Wal-Mart 

facilities and brings this demonstration experience to Plug Power. In late 2008, Plug 

Power sold over 200 fuel cell units for installation in Yale Equipment Services forklifts. 

6.3 Nuvera Fuel Cells

Nuvera manufactures PEM fuel cell stacks and PEM fuel cell systems including fuelprocessing products. The important markets that Nuvera’s PEM fuel cell and fuelprocessing systems address are industrial vehicles and equipment, power generation, and 

the transportation industries. 

6.3.1 Nuvera Forklift Trucks

Nuvera has developed a stand-alone motive power source, PowerFlowTM, for use with 

forklift trucks and industrial vehicles. The PowerFlow system can be integrated with a 

battery to provide hybrid power for industrial vehicles. The 5-kW power system uses 

Nuvera’s metal plate open flow field technology to facilitate high power density 

operation. Nuvera reports 10,000-hour durability for their cell stack.

6.4 Protonex Technology Corporation

Protonex Technology Corporation (Protonex) manufactures PEM fuel cell stacks and 

PEM fuel cell systems at the 10 watt to 1,000 watt rating. They develop hybrid power 

systems and fuel cell systems and batteries. The PEM fuel cells operate on reformed 

methanol or hydrogen from chemical hydrides. Protonex has developed an adhesivebonded stack that has the seal injection molded into the assembled stack. The adhesionbonded stack provides for a very simple assembly procedure and reduced manufacturing 

steps.

6.4.1 Protonex Auxiliary Power Unit

Protonex has developed a methanol-fueled hybrid 250-watt auxiliary power unit (APU) 

for the recreational vehicle market. Protonex believes that the appeal of low noise, 

vibration, and emissions will make hybridized fuel cells an attractive option for this 

market. Protonex stated the cable television market provides an important backup power 

opportunity with a base on the order of one million units. Their business strategy is to 

address multiple applications with the same (or very similar) power systems.

6.4.2 Protonex Backup Power

Protonex' power system is smaller and lighter than the VRLA battery bank used for 

backup power and emergency power. The power unit provides 250 watts of reliable 

power for operating small emergency systems or for recharging battery systems.
26 

7 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: System 

Manufacturing

The Manufacturing Readiness Worksheets, identified in Table 2 and Appendix B, were 

analyzed by NREL with respect to PEM fuel cell stack manufacturing and PEM fuel cell 

system manufacturing. Where possible, the worksheet questions were merged to optimize 

the assessment process and to specifically address the status of manufacturing PEM fuel 

cell stacks and systems. These relevant questions were collected and organized in a 

questionnaire for self-assessment by the four PEM fuel cell companies; Hydrogenics, 

Plug Power, Nuvera, and Protonex. The PEM questionnaire was used by NREL and 

industry representatives to assess the manufacturing readiness of the four companies 

interviewed. The PEM questionnaire is given in Appendix C.

The MRAs of the PEM fuel cell companies addressed three PEM manufacturing 

categories: (1) forklift truck fuel cell systems; (2) backup power/APU fuel cell systems; 

and (3) a combined category of forklift truck and backup power/APU fuel cell stacks. 

Information for systems and stacks is given separately for a number of reasons. Stack 

manufacturing capabilities are often more advanced and/or stack designs are more 

defined than PEM systems because applications for the systems are in many cases still 

being validated. 

7.1 Fuel Cell Systems for Forklift Trucks

Hydrogenics, Nuvera, and Plug Power manufacture and assemble PEM fuel cell systems 

for forklift trucks. All three organizations have established demonstration programs in 

cooperation with forklift truck manufacturers, commercial interests (e.g. Wal-Mart), or 

with the DLA. The three fuel cell manufacturers plan to manufacture fuel cells for the 

three categories of forklift trucks:

Class 1. Forklifts are electric-motor rider trucks, either stand-up operator or seat 

operator.

Class 2. Forklifts are electric-motor trucks for narrow aisle or inventory 

stock/order picking applications, and include extra reach capability. 

Class 3. Forklifts are electric-motor trucks, either walk-behind or standing-rider 

operated. 

7.1.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs

The aggregate self-assessment and consensus MRLs are reported in Table 5. The PEM 

power system manufacturing data for the three classes of forklift trucks are aggregated to 

maintain confidentiality since not all of the PEM manufacturers reported results as a 

function of the forklift class. The range of the risk element assessments using the PEM 

MRA questionnaire in Appendix C varied among the three companies, as shown 

graphically in Figure 4.
27 

Table 5 : Manufacturing Readiness Assessment 

PEM Power Systems for Forklift Trucks

MRLs Forklift Trucks Companies’ Selfassessment

Risk Element High Low

Technical Maturity 8 7 

Design 8 5 

Materials 8 6 

Cost & Funding 7 4 

Process Capability & 

Controls 7 5 

Quality 8 5 

Personnel 8 6 

Facilities 8 6 

Manufacturing Planning, 

Scheduling, Control 7 7 

The graphic representation in Figure 4 portrays the MRL band of MRL-4 to MRL-8 for 

the risk elements of the aggregate company data. The MRL - 4 rating of the risk element 

Cost & Funding reflects the start-up characteristics of the forklift truck 

commercialization effort. Stack components and balance-of-plant components are 

making the transition from laboratory prototype development and acquisition to full scale 

production, acquisition, and assembly. For those companies who have reached MRL – 7 

for the Design risk element, there is a higher level of comfort in the Cost & Funding risk 

element. Where there are significant changes reported for the Design risk element (MRL 

– 5), the risk elements Cost & Funding, Process Capabilities & Controls, and Quality also 

reveal greater uncertainty in attaining the LRIP operating condition.

The manufacturing readiness based on the aggregate data indicates that the PEM power 

system industry for forklift trucks has a broad range of risk element rankings. The lowest 

ranked risk element is Cost & Funding, which covers a span of three MRLs: MRL – 4 to 

MRL – 7. 

The high end rankings for risk elements Design, Process Capability & Control, and 

Quality have achieved MRL – 7 or MRL – 8, while the low end ranking is MRL -5. 

Manufacturing research and development on Process Capability & Control and on 

Quality can increase the manufacturing rankings to the LRIP stage. The MRL – 5 ranking 

of the Design risk element identifies an unstable design element that is sufficiently 

serious to delay progress in other low risk elements. 
28 

Materials, Personnel, and Facilities span a much narrower risk element ranking range; 

MRL – 6 to MRL -8. The risk element Materials requires inventory control, material 

storage, and environmental issues be addressed in the manufacture of PEM power 

systems for forklift trucks. The Personnel risk element requires the development of 

training programs for specialty manufacturing skills to be put in place. The Personnel

training would need to include training in process control and quality management. The 

Facilities risk element awaits physical changes in layout of the manufacturing processes 

to optimize the LRIP processes. These Facility risk elements can include setup of the 

workstations, construction of inventory facilities, and the installation of capital 

equipment. 

The industry self-assessment data yielding high rankings; i.e. MRL – 7 and MRL – 8, 

substantiate the LRIP operating condition for five of the risk elements. The low rankings 

identify areas of manufacturing development that need resolution prior to fully achieving 

LRIP. 

While the self-assessment variation company-to-company is real, NREL observed that 

some companies were very optimistic in their self-assessment while other companies 

were very conservative. An important criterion is a company’s ability to deliver PEM 

power systems for installation into forklift trucks. 

 

Figure 4: Industry self-assessment and consensus MRLs for forklift truck systems 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

Forklift Fuel Cell Power System Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

Risk Elements

MRL Level
29 

7.1.2 NREL Assessment

All three companies have established workstation assembly of the forklift PEM power 

systems and have organized their production facilities based on the well established Lean 

Manufacturing principles.20 None of the production processes for system manufacturing 

were automated at this early stage of production. The approach and manufacturing 

philosophy discussed by all three manufactures included the “Just In Time” (JIT) concept 

to minimize inventory. Implementation of the JIT concept is complicated by the limited 

demand for the PEM forklift power systems. In some cases, the workstations did not have 

production personnel. NREL concluded that the MRA was conducted during a transition 

stage for all of the manufacturers where the manufacturing processes are being expanded 

in anticipation of increased market demand. Not all of the companies have completed 

their facilities upgrades to meet targeted production. Those companies that had not 

increased the number of workstations in their facilities to achieve targeted production had 

facility expansion programs underway and were confident they would be production 

ready to fulfill market demand. 

All three companies have experienced manufacturing management that are aware of the 

need for manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction. The companies are organizing their 

production capabilities to promote an orderly work flow environment with rapid 

assembly of the fuel cell power systems. Using existing workstation facilities, the 

companies have conducted time studies to accurately measure their production capability. 

One company reported execution of a “Run at Rate” experiment confirming capability to 

produce 1,000 power systems per year; while another company reported their time 

studies projected to 1,250 power systems per year. Based on the reported company

time study assessments, the companies are confident their current manufacturing 

capabilities can achieve LRIP of 1,000 forklift power systems per year.

A caveat to the companies’ LRIP assertions is the lack of personnel at all of the 

companies to implement manufacturing at 1,000 power systems per year. An important 

risk element of manufacturing readiness is Personnel Training and a MRL of 7 requires 

all training programs in place and operational. It is the operational requirement of the 

Personnel

7.2 Backup Power and APU Fuel Cell Systems

 risk element that is holding companies back from achieving MRL-7. 

An important reason that no company is operating at LRIP of a 1,000 units per year is the 

industry is in the demonstration stage and proving the value of PEM-powered forklift 

trucks to the customer. NREL anticipates the transition to LRIP for forklift truck PEM 

power systems will take 12 months for most if not all of the companies. 

PEM fuel cell systems for emergency backup power and APUs are considered in the 

same category because of their similar requirements: unattended operation for up to 24 – 

72 hours, a PEM power system that is part of a hybrid battery system, power systems that 

are easily refueled, and a minimum five year life. Hydrogenics, Plug Power, and 

Protonex have established demonstration programs with prospective customers. There is 

a large difference in the ratings of these power systems with the Protonex APU at a 

maximum rating of 1 kW while the emergency backup power systems are rated 2 kW to 5 

kW.
30 

7.2.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs

The aggregate self-assessment and consensus MRLs are reported in Table 6. The range of 

the risk element assessments using the NREL-developed PEM questionnaire in Appendix 

C varied among the three companies as shown graphically in Figure 4. 

The manufacturing readiness of the PEM emergency backup power & APU industries has 

not achieved LRIP. The lowest rated risk element is Personnel, which includes 

preparation of training programs for manufacturing, preparation of the trainers, 

instruction, and skill development of manufacturing personnel, and verification of the 

skill during pilot line production. The ranking range for Personnel is MRL – 4 to MRL – 

6. The MRL - 4 rating of the risk element Personnel reflects the emphasis of the industry 

on development and demonstration of a prototype design. The transition from laboratory 

prototype to pilot line production will require personnel training. 

The Design

Table 6: Manufacturing Readiness Assessment - PEM 

Power Systems for Emergency Backup Power and 

APUs

risk element is rated at LRIP (MRL-8) or “Ready for LRIP” (MRL-7) 

signifying there are either no design changes or the design changes have decreased and 

are minimal. With a validation of the design of emergency backup power and APUs, the 

market demand becomes the driving force for increasing manufacturing readiness. 

MRLs APU & Backup 

Power

Companies’ Selfassessment

Risk Element High Low

Technical Maturity 8 7 

Design 8 7

Materials 8 7 

Cost & Funding 6 5 

Process Capability & 

Controls 6 5 

Quality 7 6 

Personnel 6 4 

Facilities 8 8

Manufacturing Planning, 

Scheduling, Control 7 6 

The risk element Process Capability & Controls ranking has a very narrow range: MRL – 

5 to MRL – 6, and while the span of this risk element is narrow it is below the LRIP 

rating. The MRL – 5 rating of this risk element reveals the strong emphasis on 

developing and demonstrating a prototype that will stimulate market demand. The high 

end rankings for this risk element show that manufacturing processes have not been fully 
31 

proven for the pilot line production and major changes to the production scale processes 

may be necessary. Increasing the ranking of this risk element for emergency backup 

power & APUs will require manufacturing development and establishment of greater 

process control.

The MRL – 5 ranking for risk element Cost & Funding is a sign of the emphasis on the 

prototype development and demonstration of this technology. The Cost & Funding risk 

element has a narrow ranking range of one MRL. Manufacturing activities addressing 

process and tooling needs are limited and investment requirements for the manufacturing 

process are only starting to be considered. Some companies reported cost reduction plans 

were being started and that Make / Buy programs were in the early stages. Considerations 

of cost controls for suppliers are still in the early stages. Manufacturing R&D will 

improve the Cost & Funding risk element ranking and elevate it to “ready for LRIP.”

The two risk elements Quality and Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, & Control are 

ranked in the range of MRL -6 to MRL – 7; the latter being “ready for LRIP.” At the 

MRL – 6 stage, the quality and reliability specifications for the production process are 

being set. The work with subcontractors is addressing quality and reliability of the 

components when they are produced at LRIP rates and at costs consistent with LRIP 

requirements. Manufacturing planning is in the final data collection stage and critical 

schedule pathways are being identified for LRIP rates.

The four risk elements Technical Maturity, Design, Materials, and Facilities are all 

“ready for LRIP” at MRL – 7 or have advanced to LRIP at MRL – 8. The focus of the 

manufacturing development efforts is to increase the ranking of risk elements lower than 

MRL -7. Planning and activities for Full Rate Production, MRL – 9, were not reported by 

the emergency backup power & APU companies. The risk element ranking is graphically 

presented in Figure 5. 
32 

Figure 5: MRA industry self-assessment PEM power systems for emergency backup power 

& APUs

7.2.2 NREL Assessment

The manufacturing structure for all three companies is based on Lean Manufacturing, but 

the implementation of the Lean Manufacturing principles is hindered by the limited 

market demand. Personnel are not dedicated to specific workstations and move between 

workstations. Demand for 1,000 power plants per year has not developed, although all 

three companies forecast increased demand and have designed the manufacturing 

processes accordingly. Some of the companies have installed all of the workstations to 

produce at 1,000 power plants per year while others are planning to increase the number 

of workstations to meet market demand. Company manufacturing growth is driven by the 

market demand. 

Using existing workstation facilities, the companies have conducted time studies to 

measure their production capability and efficiency. The time studies were used to design 

and optimize an orderly work flow at the workstations, and the companies concluded 

production rates of 200 to 300 units per year were readily achieved. Increasing the 

number of workstations and personnel would result in LRIP of emergency power 

systems & APUs.

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

APU & Backup Power System Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

Risk Elements

MRL Level
33 

8 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment: Stack 

Manufacturing

Hydrogenics, Nuvera, Plug Power, and Protonex manufacture cell stacks for their PEM 

fuel cell applications. In addition, Plug Power purchases PEM cell stacks from Ballard 

Power Systems. The manufacturing processes used to construct the cell stacks are 

characteristic of the varied designs of these companies’ PEM technology. In particular, 

the Protonex adhesion bonding method of building stacks21

8.1 Industry Self-assessment and Consensus MRLs for Cell stack

Production

is very different from the 

more traditional method of cell stack assembly.

The cell stack manufacturing maturity for all four companies is guided by the market 

demand for the emerging PEM fuel cell applications. The companies have established 

workstations for the manufacture and assembly of the cell stacks and the organization of 

the workstations is based on Lean Manufacturing principles. None of the stack assembly 

workstations use automated methods. The manufacturers attempt to control inventory by 

operating with the “Just In Time” approach for component and stack assembly. This 

approach is complicated by the large number of components required to assemble the cell 

stack and the present fluctuating market demand. The number of stack assembly 

workstations is limited at all of the companies; however, the existing workstations have 

demonstrated acceptable production rates. All of the companies reported that 

increasing the number of workstations and / or the personnel will achieve LRIP of 

1,000 cell stacks per year.

The aggregate self-assessment by the companies is given in Table 7. The range of the risk 

element values using the NREL-developed PEM questionnaire in Appendix C varied 

among the three companies; significant variation exist for the two risk elements Cost & 

Funding and Personnel. The companies’ self-assessments for the risk elements are shown 

graphically in Figure 6. 
34 

Table 7: Manufacturing Readiness Assessment PEM 

Cell Stacks

MRLs Stacks Companies’ Self-assessment 

Risk Element High Low

Technical Maturity 8 7 

Design 9 8 

Materials 9 8 

Cost & Funding 8 5 

Process Capability & 

Controls 7 7 

Quality 8 6 

Personnel 8 4 

Facilities 8 8 

Manufacturing Planning, 

Scheduling, Control 8 7 

The high ranking column of the risk elements in Table 7 identifies PEM cell stack 

manufacturing at “ready for LRIP” at a minimum and in some case preparing for the 

transition to FRP. 

The risk element Cost & Funding covers the range MRL – 5 to MRL – 8. The companies 

with the lower rating emphasized the development and demonstration of the prototype 

design and are only beginning to implement cost reduction programs. Some of the risk 

element criteria have been met; e.g. Make / Buy programs have been initiated, while 

other risk elements such as cost controls on the suppliers and subcontractors have not 

been achieved. The poor cost control on the suppliers may be resolved as increasing 

production volumes provide leverage for supplier cost control. 

The risk element Quality covers the range MRL – 6 to MRL - 8 and shows that final 

quality and reliability levels for some stack manufactures have not been established. In 

addition, quality and reliability requirements have not been set for the suppliers and 

subcontractors. The risk element Quality can be easily elevated to MRL – 7 (“ready for 

LRIP”) because the ranking of the two risk elements Design and Materials are both 

mature (at MRL – 8, “operating at LRIP”) permitting development efforts to focus on 

quality. 
35 

Figure 6: MRA industry self-assessment PEM cell stack manufacturing

8.2 NREL Assessment

Three risk element outliers for cell stack manufacturing need to be addressed by the 

companies: Personnel, Cost & Funding, and Quality. The assessments of the risk element 

Personnel cover the broad range from “At LRIP and all specialty training skills are 

verified” (MRL – 8) to “Training programs are being identified” (MRL – 4). The greatest 

problems expressed by some of the companies for risk element Personnel were the 

development and implementation of training programs and the staffing requirements. 

Some companies have not fully implemented cost control measures and this is reflected 

in the high cost range for emergency backup power; $6,000/kW to $3,000/kW.5 The 

validation programs operated by the government agencies accept these high costs; 

however the market transformation to commercial systems is a driver for companies to 

compete and reduce costs. 

9 Key Barriers to Achieving Low Rate Initial Production

In addition to completing the NREL-developed PEM questionnaire with the 

manufacturers, as described above, a general discussion was held with each manufacturer 

to obtain their input on future activities that DOE could support with the objective of 

assisting industry in reaching, and later surpassing, LRIP. As would be expected, varied 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

Consolidated Data

Stack Manufacture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Technical Maturity

Design

Materials

Cost & Funding

Process Capability & Controls

Quality

Personnel

Facilities

Risk Elements Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

MRL Level
36 

responses were received from the manufacturers given the different manufacturing 

processes and competencies of each company. However, some clear similarities emerged. 

• Testing and quality control was an issue mentioned by all four manufacturers. Quality 

control in the assembly of stacks is slowing the development of cell stack assembly 

using automation. In-line quality control measurements and methods of positioning 

cell components with reliability, accuracy, and at high rates are common needs for all 

manufacturers. The development of semi-automated and fully-automated stack and 

system assembly techniques is a critical benefit for cost reduction at LRIP and a 

critical requirement for FRP.

• The long time periods required for stack and final system conditioning and testing 

were repeatedly identified as a major barrier to rapid assembly of systems. Stack and 

system conditioning are time consuming and costly. Manufacturers recommended 

developing a suite of short term tests that would correlate with durability and 

reliability of the stack and system.

• Balance of plant (BOP) subcomponent testing was also identified as a barrier. A 

better understanding of the quality variability of BOP components was clearly 

identified as an industry need. 

• Support for design-for-manufacturability analyses was suggested. One manufacturer 

commented that transition to full rate production will require a total redesign of 

manufacturing capability and facilities, and may even require a redesign of the stack 

or system itself.

10 Conclusions: Manufacturing Readiness Assessment PEM 

Stacks and Systems

NREL developed a MRA process for evaluating PEM system and stack manufacturing 

status that builds on evaluating nine risk elements: Technical Maturity, Design, Materials, 

Cost & Funding, Process Capability & Controls, Quality, Personnel, Facilities, and 

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling & Control. When applying the MRA to several 

companies, a broad range of rankings within a risk element can occur that highlight the 

diverse production capabilities of these companies.

NREL assisted in manufacturing readiness self-assessments by PEM fuel cell stack and 

system manufacturers for forklift trucks, emergency backup power, and APU 

applications. NREL developed a questionnaire to facilitate the MRAs by the companies, 

collected the data, and produced an aggregate database identifying the collective status of 

the manufacturing capability of the PEM system and stack manufacturers. The database 

maintains anonymity for the companies while ranking the manufacturing capability. 

All of the companies are making the transition from research, development, and 

demonstration-guided activities to market-guided activities with a strong emphasis on 

establishing a manufacturing process for a fixed PEM design. This beginning stage of 
37 

market transformation has changed the investment strategies of the companies to 

emphasize reproducible production of a PEM system / stack with high levels of quality 

control of the PEM design and the manufacturing process. The emphasis on meeting 

market demand imposes cost limitations on the PEM technology and the companies are 

addressing cost-driven design, performance, and delivery requirements. 

The NREL-developed MRA brought into focus the manufacturing risks associated with 

achieving LRIP of 1,000 PEM systems per year. Four important conclusions are the 

result of the companies’ self-assessments and NREL’s assessment of the manufacturing 

status.

1. Based on the reported company time-study assessments, PEM companies are 

confident their manufacturing approaches can achieve a LRIP of 1,000 forklift 

truck PEM power systems per year. The companies are not at the 1,000 unit LRIP 

today for forklift PEM power systems. Based on current market demand, actual 

production rates are currently in the range of 200-300 units per year. 

2. Based on the reported company time-study assessments, PEM companies are 

confident their manufacturing approaches can achieve a LRIP of 1,000 power 

systems per year for emergency backup power & APUs. The companies are not at 

the 1,000 unit LRIP today. Based on current market demand, actual production 

rates are currently in the range of 200-300 units per year. 

3. The Manufacturing Readiness for cell stacks is the most advanced of the three 

manufacturing capabilities assessed. There was a high level of risk for stack 

development for staffing and training of production personnel. Importantly, costs 

of the cell stack also represent a risk. Because the cell stack is an integral and 

dominating component of PEM systems, resolution of these two risk issues, 

Personnel and Cost, are critical for companies to achieve market transformation 

into a FRP.

4. The risk elements Cost & Funding, Personnel, and Quality had lower rankings for 

forklift truck and emergency backup power & APU applications. NREL considers 

these low ranking risk elements to be representative of the transition from PEM 

prototype development to a stable, commercial PEM system design. The 

establishment of a stable PEM design changes the emphasis from demonstration 

to high rate quality production of a cost competitive PEM system by trained 

personnel. 

While the system and stack MRAs demonstrated large MRL ranges within many of the 

risk elements, it is instructional to consider both the minimum and the maximum 

aggregate MRLs. The minimum MRLs indicate the critical risk areas that must be 

addressed to reach a manufacturing maturity that will support LRIP across the entire 

manufacturing enterprise. The reasons for and implications of the low MRLs have been 

discussed in sections 7 and 8. However, an assessment of the maximum aggregate MRLs 

gives a different perspective. As can be seen in Tables 5-7, the maximum MRLs in 

almost all cases describe a near-readiness for LRIP. In other words, in aggregate, the 

industry already possesses the technologies and best practices needed for production at 

LRIP – what is needed are the market conditions to enable each manufacturer to address 

their specific risk areas.
38 

11 Recommendations

11.1 Recommendations based on the manufacturing readiness assessments

Two risk elements with poor rankings identified by the MRAs of the three applications 

(forklift trucks, emergency backup power and APUs), are Cost & Funding and Personnel

• Increasing the market demand will provide the impetus for fuel cell manufacturers to 

increase production staff, implement training programs, and resolve and improve the 

ranking of the 

. 

The major barrier for both of these risk elements is market demand. The fuel cell 

manufacturers have emphasized research, development, and demonstration to establish 

applications. Even with these efforts, the market pull has not developed. 

Personnel

• The present platinum content combined with the cost of platinum catalyst causes a 

high initial purchase price for PEM fuel cells. R&D support to lower the catalyst 

content and drive down the initial purchase price of fuel cells is recommended.

risk element. Market transformation programs that 

identify mission structure applications for fuel cells are designed to increase 

market demand and are recommended.

The risk element Quality

11.2 Programmatic Recommendations

 is the third common problem area identified by the MRAs. All 

cell stacks and fuel cell systems currently require conditioning and continuous operation 

prior to delivery to the customer. The conditioning process is costly, time consuming, and 

requires expensive testing equipment. In-line, continuous quality control measurements 

are rare and not fully developed for the assembly of cell stacks and fuel cell systems. In 

stack manufacture, in-line quality control methods for the inspection of cell components 

do not exist. With the transition to FRP, the requirements for in-line, high rate quality 

control methodology will increase. Quality control methodologies for stack 

component inspection and reduction of cell stack and fuel cell system conditioning 

time are a recommended area for DOE support.

The MRA provides an assessment of the progress of a manufacturer toward LRIP and 

FRP for a given market segment, using a standard methodology that can lead to 

comparative and agglomerate analyses of the industry. The evaluation of LRIP for an 

emerging market and the assessment of a manufacturer’s ability to produce at LRIP can 

be used as “jump-in”/ “jump-out” criteria for market transformation decision makers. In 

addition, information for reporting of progress toward HFCIT goals and for identifying 

new areas for manufacturing R&D is generated. An ongoing MRL assessment activity 

should be established in support of the HFCIT Market Transformation activity. 

Participation in this activity should be a requirement for all co-funded 

demonstration activities so that unbiased, comparative assessments can be made.

The MRA conducted with the assistance of Hydrogenics, Nuvera, Protonex, and Plug 

Power assessed the manufacturing status of fuel cell power systems for forklift trucks, 

emergency backup power and APUs, and cell stack manufacture. Plug Power uses its fuel 

cell stack and the Ballard Power Systems fuel cell stack. Discussions are underway for 

Ballard to participate in a self-assessment of fuel cell stack manufacturing. The selfassessment will probably occur within the next six months. The MRA of Ballard cell 
39 

stacks is an important metric of fuel cell stack manufacturing, and should be 

included as a follow-on activity to this report if possible.

While the MRA reported here addressed cell stacks, the MRA did not rank the 

manufacturing status of cell stack component manufacture. Manufacture of bipolar plates 

and membrane-electrode-assembly (MEA) components are critical, time consuming, and 

costly processes for the manufacture and commercialization of fuel cells. A 5-kW stack 

will contain 20 to 25 MEAs per stack and an equal number of bipolar plates. 

Manufacturing rates for the MEAs and bipolar plates need to be up to 25 times greater 

than stack manufacturing rates. Over 90% of the MEA cost is materials, thus process 

control to reduce scrap and rework is critical. Quality is an important risk element for cell 

components. Each of the 25 MEAs has four edges to be sealed and each of the bipolar 

plates has four edges to be sealed to the MEAs; operation at less than six sigma (3.4 

failures per million) will increase rework and overall costs. The manufacturing 

readiness of the cell components is critical to the commercialization of PEM fuel 

cells and should be assessed as a follow-on activity of this report.

Assessing automotive cell component and stack manufacture introduces a new level of 

quality and cost control. The quality issue stems from the large number of cells per 

automotive stack – 180 to 230 cells per stack with two stacks per power system – and the 

large number of stacks to be manufactured. LRIP for the automobile industry is in the 

range of one million cell stacks per year based on 500,000 vehicles (less than 4% of the 

North American market). Over 200 million MEAs would need to be manufactured 

annually or 400 MEAs per minute. Process control of multiple manufacturing facilities 

will be critical to achieving MEA compatibility for automotive applications. The MRA 

of automotive cell component and cell stack manufacturing is critical to forecasting 

the entry of PEM fuel cell powered vehicles.

12 References 

 

1

 Sinha, J., Lasher, S., Yang, Y., and Kopf, P., “Direct Hydrogen PEMFC Manufacturing 

Cost Estimation for Automotive Applications”, presented by TIAX, INC. to the Fuel Cell 

Tech Team Review, September 24, 2008 

2

 James, B., and Kalinowski, J., “Mass Production Cost Estimation for Direct H2 PEM 

Fuel Cell Systems for Automotive Applications – Presentation to the Fuel Cell Tech 

Team”, DOE Hydrogen Program, September 24, 2008 

3

 Greene, D.L., Leiby, P.N., James, B., Perez , J., Melendez, M. Milbrandt A., Unnasch, 

S. and Hooks, M., “2008 Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles & 

the Potential Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure Requirements” , ORNL/TM-2008/30, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March, 2008 

4 Executive Order 13423 – Strengthening Federal Environmental Energy, and 

Transportation Management, January 26, 2007 

Devlin, P., “Manufacturing R&D and Market Transformation”, 2008 DOE Hydrogen 

Program Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting, June 9, 2008 
40 

 5

 Mahadevan, K., Stone, H., Zewatsky, J., Thomas, A., Judd, K. and Paul, P., “Market 

Opportunity Assessment of PEM Fuel Cells in Federal Markets,” Battelle, Presentation to 

the 2007 Fuel Cell Seminar and Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, October 17, 2007 

6

 Mahadevan, K., Stone, H., Zewatsky, J., Thomas, A., Judd, K. and Paul, P., 

“Identification and Characterization of Near-Term Direct Hydrogen Proton Exchange 

membrane Fuel Cell Markets”, Battelle, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

DOE Contract No. DE-FC36-03GO13110, April, 2007

7

Executive Summary 2007, Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan, 

Planned program activities for 2005 -2015. Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure 

Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 2007 

8 The Manufacturing Readiness Levels are derived from reference given in the following. 

The Air Force Transition Readiness Calculator provided a succinct source of MRLs 

that are incorporated with some minor modifications.

Air Force Transition Readiness Level Calculator, Version 2.2 

Department of Defense “Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook”, 

September, 2003 

Department of Defense MRL GUIDE 2007

“Department of Defense, Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook”, 25 

March 2008 

9

 Garland, N., “Fuel Cells”, 2008 DOE Hydrogen Program Merit Review and Peer 

Evaluation Meeting, June 9, 2008 

10 Greene, D. L., and Duleep, K. G., “Bootstrapping a Sustainable North American PEM 

Fuel Cell Industry: Could a Federal Acquisition Program Make a Difference?” Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2008/183 

11 Thomas, C. E., “Comparison of Transportation Options in a carbon-constrained World: 

Hydrogen, Plug-in Hybrids, and Biofuels”, www.fuelcells.org 

12 “Roadmap on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy”, Based on the Results 

of the Workshop on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy, Washington, D.C., 

July 13−14, 2005, U.S. Department of Energy

13 Wheeler, D., and Sverdrup, G., “2007 Status of Manufacturing: Polymer Electrolyte 

Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells”, Technical Report NREL/TP-560-41655, March 2008 

14 Scheffler, G. and Ferro, J., “UTC Power Stage/Gate Presentation to the HFCIT 

Program”, December 7, 2006 

15 Payne, T., “Hydrogen Program Technology Readiness Levels”, received May, 2008 

16 M. Ulsh personal communication with John Christensen, November 25, 2008 

17 Devlin, P., “Manufacturing R&D”, 2008 DOE Hydrogen Program Merit Review and 

Peer Evaluation Meeting, June 13, 2008 

18 Ballard Press Release, Ballard Announces High Volume Fuel Cell Supply Agreement 

For Telecom Backup Power in India, October, 2008 

19 Butler, J., 2008 Niche Transport, Volume 2, Fuel Cell Today, August 2008 

20 Liker, J., “The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles From The World's Greatest 

Manufacturer”, McGraw Hill (2004) ISBN 0-07-139231-9 

21 Osenar, P., U.S. Patent 7,306,864 
Appendix A

Manufacturing Readiness Levels Final Report

HFCIT Technology Readiness Levels

Appendix A - 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed TRLs incorporating inputs 

from the Department of Energy for the HFCIT Program fuel cell activities and from 

the hydrogen storage activities

TRL 1 Basic research with basic principles observed and reported:

o The essential characteristics and behaviors of systems and architectures 

have been defined.

o Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and 

development. 

o Fundamental understanding of physical phenomena is developed. Potential 

may exist for multiple applications, with no specific application 

emphasized

TRL 2 Applied research and technology concept is formulated and invention 

process begins:

o Applied research is undertaken with the transition from TRL 1.

o Theory and scientific principles define the concept for specific application.

o Characteristics of the application have been described. Analytical tools 

have been developed for simulation or analysis of the application.

o Invention begins based on practical application of basic principles.

o Fundamental understanding is utilized to assess concept viability for the 

targeted application and need for further R&D is identified

o Exploratory concepts and approaches are developed and targeted for a 

specific application.

TRL 3 Concept validation and characteristic proof-of-concept demonstration

o Concept validation has been achieved with demonstration of technical 

feasibility using breadboard or brass-board implementations.

o Applied research and development continues. Initial laboratory 

measurements studies validate analytical predictions of separate elements 

of the technology.

o Technology is incorporated into a first generation component/process 

design. Component/process design activities may be assisted by 

performing: 

 Analytical studies

 Laboratory experiments

 Modeling and simulation

o New technical barriers associated with moving the technology from lab 

data to component/process development are defined

TRL 4 Component/subsystem validation in laboratory environment:

o Prototyping implementation and testing have been demonstrated.

o Integration of technology elements has been demonstrated. 

o Design, development and lab testing of technological components provide 

evidence that applicable component/process performance targets may be 

attainable based on projected or modeled systems.

 Technology demonstrates functionality of component/process in 

simplified environment
Appendix A

Manufacturing Readiness Levels Final Report

HFCIT Technology Readiness Levels

Appendix A - 2

 Draft component/process conceptual design has been documented

 Performance metrics for component/process have been established 

and documented.

 Cross-technology issues (e.g., H2 quality) have been identified.

TRL 5 System/subsystem/component validation in relevant environment:

o Thorough testing of prototyping in a representative environment validated 

in the laboratory.

o Major components integrated in breadboard evaluation.

o Technological components/process steps are integrated with supporting 

elements so that the technology can be tested and verified in the lab.

 System engineering and analysis studies address cost, 

performance, integration, and interfaces, are completed

 A semi-integrated to fully integrated system assembled in the 

laboratory that simulates full scale integrated.

 The semi/fully integrated system/process tests results verify that 

when projected to full scale operations, the system/process can 

meet the targets for commercialization

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototyping demonstration in a 

environment:

o Representative model or prototype system has been tested in a relevant 

environment.

o Fully integrated system built, tested and verified. Results demonstrate that 

the system/process will meet all targets at full scale.

 Materials, process, design, and integration methods have been 

defined.

 Scaling issues that remain are identified and supporting analysis is 

complete.

 System integration issues have been identified and major issues 

have been addressed.

 Results meet the system/process targets for commercialization.

 The system/process specifications are complete

 Scaling issues are identified and supporting analysis is complete.

 Production issues identified and resolved.

 Actual reliability, availability and maintainability data obtained 

from the prototype, analyzed, and issues resolved

TRL 7 System prototyping demonstration in an operational environment:

o System prototype demonstrated in an operational environment.

o Integrated test vehicle with collateral and ancillary systems completed.

o Technology verified at semi-commercial/commercial scale. System 

completed and qualified through test and demonstration.

 Materials, process, design, and integration methods are complete.

 System integration issues identified and addressed.

 System/process is tested for extended periods of time. 

 System/process specifications are complete.

 Production issues identified and resolved.
Appendix A

Manufacturing Readiness Levels Final Report

HFCIT Technology Readiness Levels

Appendix A - 3

 Collection of actual system reliability, availability and 

maintainability data obtained and issues resolved.

TRL 8 System completed and incorporated in commercial design and proven

through testing in an operational environment:

o End of system development.

o Fully integrated operational hardware and software systems developed.

o Technology proven to work in final form under real-world conditions.

o System incorporated into commercial design.

 Technology successfully completed operational demonstration and 

evaluation.

 Safety/Adverse effects issues identified and mitigated technology 

is available from one or more vendors for commercial sales

TRL 9 System is successfully demonstrated in field:

o Fully integrated operational hardware/software systems have been 

developed. 

o Actual application of the technology is in final form and demonstrated in 

the field.

o All documentation has been completed.

o Sustained engineering support is in place.
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 1 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-5

Plans to reduce manufacturing technology barriers have been 

implemented

Targets for improved yield established

Pre-production process equipment available

Prototype materials, prototype components, tooling and test equipment 

in development for pilot line production.

Trade studies and laboratory experiments under way to define critical 

manufacturing processes.

Manufacturing process still in development

Industrial subcontractors and production capacity

Subcontractors are identified.

Contingency requirements have been evaluated and documented

Long-lead issues under study.

Plans prepared and accepted to mitigate schedule delays
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 2 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element 2

Design

Does the engineering plan support manufacturing of evolving 

design?

Integrated Product Team has established design and manufacturing 

approach

Engineering change process includes production / manufacturing and 

quality representation.

Configuration management process is tracking subcontractors

There are no significant design and engineering changes

Component testing completed for “changed” processes.

Design for Manufacturing

Performance trade studies for alternative designs are complete.

Producibility engineering trade studies are complete.

Component and hardware requirements established.

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and

components?

System design with changes is still a low risk for manufacturing

“Design to Cost” criteria are maintained

Tooling design plan

Special tooling and test equipment under test.
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 3 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element 3

Materials

Material Standardization

Material standardization plan developed

Material Availability & Handling

Material control and inventory control processes are in place

Environmental issues with materials are addressed or a plan is in place 

to address environmental issues

Risk Element 4 

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

Manufacturing costs are estimated and being reviewed and revised.

Program making progress to identifying component cost goals.

Investment needs for process and tooling determined

Make / Buy program is initiated

Cost Drivers

Has a cost center been established?

Progress toward costs traceable to manufacturing process steps being 

made.

Analysis of non-recurring capital and engineering costs ongoing

Subcontractors and suppliers cost control identified
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 4 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element 4

Cost and Funding continued

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost reduction plan is operational and contributing to reducing cost.

Cost model is developed.

Risk Element 5 

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Key manufacturing processes assessed for pilot line.

Processes requiring major production-scale related changes identified

Initial assessment of assembly needs performed

Progress is made on pilot line build.

Manufacturing Process Control

Analysis of production throughput initiated.

Yield issues have been defined and rationalized

Risk Element 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Continuous process improvement program in place and working.

Metrology program in place.
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 5 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Quality and reliability requirements under development.

Progress toward analysis of system Sigma levels.

Supply Chain Quality 

Quality and reliability requirements have been flowed down to 

subcontractors

Risk Element 7 

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Personnel skills have been demonstrated on components in laboratory.

Training program necessary for specialty skills initiated.

Training programs in place for Process Control and Quality initiated. 

Risk Element 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facility changes initiated that are consistent with proposed LRIP 

production levels

Facility personnel participants in the Integrated Product Team
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-5 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 6 

Manufacturing

Readiness Level 5 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Development: Trade studies and laboratory experiments result in development 

of key manufacturing processes and initial sigma levels. Preliminary manufacturing assembly sequences 

identified. Process, tooling, inspection, and test equipment in development. Significant engineering and 

design changes. Quality and reliability levels not yet established. Tooling and machines demonstrated in 

the laboratory. Physical and functional interfaces have not been completely defined.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Manufacturing plan is developed, working and being reviewed.

Manufacturing flow chart completed.

Subcontractor / supplier management plan in place and working

Have alternative sources for critical components been identified?
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-6 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 7 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 6 

Worksheet1

Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped: Critical manufacturing processes prototyped, targets for 

improved yield established. Process and tooling mature. Frequent design changes still occur. 

Investment in machining and tooling identified. Quality and reliability levels identified. Design to cost 

goals identified. Pilot line operation demonstrated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-6

Representative prototype tested in simulated operational environment

Components are functionally compatible with operational system

Critical manufacturing processes prototyped

Trade studies and laboratory experiments to define critical 

manufacturing processes complete.

Successful system manufacture in pilot line demonstrated.

Industrial subcontractors and production capacity

Long lead time items resolved

Contingency requirements have been evaluated and documented

Thread 2

Design

Design for Manufacturing

Frequent design changes occur

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and 

components?

IPT integrates manufacturing needs into overall product plan

System design with changes is still a low risk for manufacturing

“Design to Cost” criteria maintained
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-6 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 8 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 6 

Worksheet1

Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped: Critical manufacturing processes prototyped, targets for 

improved yield established. Process and tooling mature. Frequent design changes still occur. 

Investment in machining and tooling identified. Quality and reliability levels identified. Design to cost 

goals identified. Pilot line operation demonstrated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 3

Materials

Material Standardization

Material standardization plan being used

Material Availability & Handling

Materials available are in “production quantities”

Initiate a parts /materials procurement plan

Material control and inventory control processes in place.

Environmental issues with materials addressed.

Thread 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

Design to cost goals are identified

Detailed cost analysis is available that includes design trades and 

allocated cost targets

Make / Buy assessment updated as design matures. 

Cost Drivers

Cost center accumulates cost data and reports results on regular basis

Cost traceable to manufacturing process steps

Analysis of non-recurring capital and engineering costs ongoing

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost reduction plan operational and contributing to reducing cost

Cost model is developed and contributing to cost reduction program.
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-6 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 9 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 6 

Worksheet1

Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped: Critical manufacturing processes prototyped, targets for 

improved yield established. Process and tooling mature. Frequent design changes still occur. 

Investment in machining and tooling identified. Quality and reliability levels identified. Design to cost 

goals identified. Pilot line operation demonstrated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 5

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Progress being made toward major production related changes

Production issues identified and major issues resolved

Prototype process demonstrations are complete

Special tools and tests purchased and are being installed

Manufacturing Process Control

Analysis of production throughput completed using pilot line

Yield issues understood and major issues resolved

Thread 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Continuous process improvement program in place and working

Quality and reliability levels established

Sigma levels under evaluation to determine if cost targets for 

components/ subsystems / total system satisfied

Supply Chain Quality 

Quality and reliability requirements flowed down to subcontractors
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-6 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 10 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 6 

Worksheet1

Critical Manufacturing Process Prototyped: Critical manufacturing processes prototyped, targets for 

improved yield established. Process and tooling mature. Frequent design changes still occur. 

Investment in machining and tooling identified. Quality and reliability levels identified. Design to cost 

goals identified. Pilot line operation demonstrated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Training program necessary for specialty skills completed.

Training programs in place for Process Control and Quality. 

Funding for training is in place

Thread 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facility changes underway that are consistent with proposed LRIP 

production levels 

ISO or other appropriate certification necessary is identified

Thread 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Manufacturing plan updated and evaluated with risk plan

Subcontractor / supplier management plan in place and working

Critical schedule paths identified
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-7 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 11 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 7 

Worksheet1

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. 

Ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling and 

inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production environment. Manufacturing processes generally well 

understood. Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and manufacturing 

process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals validated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-7

System prototype successfully tested in a field environment

System prototype improves to pre-production quality

Materials and manufacturing process and manufacturing procedures 

initially demonstrated at pilot line

Industrial subcontractors and production capacity

Components are representative of production components

Contingency requirements have been evaluated and documented

Subcontractor production capabilities are monitored

Thread 2

Design

Program Performance Baseline

Configuration management and engineering change process are in 

place for production and subcontractors

Design for Manufacturing

Design changes decrease significantly

Technical acceptance criteria are established
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-7 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 12 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 7 

Worksheet1

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. 

Ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling and 

inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production environment. Manufacturing processes generally well 

understood. Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and manufacturing 

process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals validated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 2

Design continued

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and 

components?

IPT integrates manufacturing needs into overall product plan

System design is low risk for manufacturing

“Design to Cost” criteria maintained

Thread 3

Materials

Material Availability & Handling

Procurement plan in place

Make / Buy decisions have been made on critical

materials / components?

Materials available in “production quantities”

Pre-production system hardware available, quantities may be limited

Thread 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

A detailed cost analysis is in place

Program continues to make progress to cost goals

Design or material breakthroughs identified to reach initial 

manufacturing cost
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-7 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 13 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 7 

Worksheet1

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. 

Ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling and 

inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production environment. Manufacturing processes generally well 

understood. Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and manufacturing 

process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals validated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 4

Cost and Funding continued

Cost Drivers

Cost center accumulates cost data and reports results on regular basis

Costs are traceable to manufacturing process steps and monitored for 

future potential improvement

Non-recurring engineering and capital costs for LRIP completed

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost reduction plan operational and contributing to reducing cost

Cost model is developed and contributing to cost reduction program

Cost mitigation plans developed

Subcontractor and supplier cost control measures in place

Thread 5

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Process tooling and inspection / test equipment demonstrated on pilot 

line for LRIP

Manufacturing processes generally well understood

Process equipment enables pre-production quality of system prototype.

Machines and tooling proven
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-7 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 14 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 7 

Worksheet1

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. 

Ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling and 

inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production environment. Manufacturing processes generally well 

understood. Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and manufacturing 

process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals validated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 5

Process Capability and Control continued

Manufacturing Process Control

Maintainability, reliability, and supportability data for manufacturing 

processes is above 60% of total needed data

Quality trend and failure analysis under development for continuous 

process control

Yield data will be obtained from pilot line operation

Thread 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Sigma levels established and quality organization operating to 

established quality goals

Statistical process control capability in place

Metrology program in place for production equipment, tooling and 

testing calibration

Quality program integrated with continuous process improvement 

program

Quality Strategy continued

Quality organization certify production processes and training of 

personnel
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-7 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 15 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 7 

Worksheet1

Prototype Manufacturing System. Prototype system built on soft tooling, initial sigma levels established. 

Ready for low rate initial production (LRIP). Design changes decrease significantly. Process tooling and 

inspection and test equipment demonstrated in production environment. Manufacturing processes generally well 

understood. Machines and tooling proven. Materials initially demonstrated in production and manufacturing 

process and procedures initially demonstrated. Design to cost goals validated.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Thread 6

Quality continued

Supply Chain Quality 

Subcontractor and suppliers quality programs reviewed and accepted / 

changed

Thread 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

All training programs in place and operational.

Thread 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facility changes near completion that are consistent with proposed 

LRIP production levels

Progress made on certification

Thread 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Ready for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

Production planning is complete

Delivery schedules meet program needs.

Internal and supplier quality programs have been developed
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-8 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 16 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 8 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield and 

producibility levels for pilot line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well understood and controlled 

to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should have 

completed demonstration in production environment. All materials are in production and readily available. Cost estimates 

<125% cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-8

Manufacturing processes demonstrated at LRIP in pilot line

Industrial subcontractors and production capacity

Components are form, fit and function compatible with operational 

system

Subcontractor production capability being monitored

Risk Element - 2

Design

Program Performance Baseline

Critical product and process technologies are defined

Design for Manufacturing

Design stable and few or no design changes

Technical acceptance criteria established

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and 

components?

IPT integrates manufacturing needs into overall product plan

System design is low risk for manufacturing

“Design to Cost” criteria are maintained
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-8 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 17 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 8 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield and 

producibility levels for pilot line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well understood and controlled 

to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should have 

completed demonstration in production environment. All materials are in production and readily available. Cost estimates 

<125% cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 2

Design continued

Tooling design plan

Process and tooling are mature

Risk Element - 3

Materials

Material Availability & Handling

Materials, components, and hardware are in production

Material and inventory control system are in place and functional

Make / Buy decisions and Bill of Materials complete and support 

Low Rate Initial Production

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

Cost estimates a re < 125% of cost goals

A detailed cost analysis is in place

Program continues to make progress to cost goals

Cost Drivers

Cost center accumulates cost data and reports results on regular basis

Costs are traceable to manufacturing process steps and monitored for 

future potential improvement

Initiate analysis for non-recurring capital and engineering costs for 

Full Rate Production (FRP)
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-8 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 18 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 8 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield and 

producibility levels for pilot line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well understood and controlled 

to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should have 

completed demonstration in production environment. All materials are in production and readily available. Cost estimates 

<125% cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding continued

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost reduction plan operational and contributing to reducing cost

Cost model is mature, no changes to model and model is contributing 

to cost reduction program

Cost mitigation incorporated in cost reduction plan

Subcontractor and supplier cost control measures in place

Risk Element - 5 

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Manufacturing processes have demonstrated acceptable yield and 

LRIP production levels

Machines and tooling are proven

Manufacturing Process Control

Maintainability, reliability, and supportability data collection for 

manufacturing processes has been completed

Quality trend and failure analysis operational for continuous process 

control 

Manufacturing process controlled to appropriate quality level

Yield and quality data obtained from pilot line operation
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-8 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 19 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 8 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield and 

producibility levels for pilot line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well understood and controlled 

to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should have 

completed demonstration in production environment. All materials are in production and readily available. Cost estimates 

<125% cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Quality and reliability levels established

Metrology program in place for production equipment, tooling and 

production testing calibration

Quality program part of continuous process improvement program

Quality organization certifies production processes and training of 

personnel

Supply Chain Quality 

Subcontractor and suppliers quality programs reviewed and accepted 

/ changed

Risk Element - 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Specialty skills verified on pilot line

Training part of continuous improvement program

Risk Element - 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facilities in place for LRIP production

All non-recurring costs associated with facilities documented

Facilities LRIP certification is completed
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-8 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 20 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 8 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Process Maturity Demonstration. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield and 

producibility levels for pilot line. All design requirements satisfied. Manufacturing process well understood and controlled 

to 3-sigma or appropriate quality level. Minimal investment in machine and tooling - machines and tooling should have 

completed demonstration in production environment. All materials are in production and readily available. Cost estimates 

<125% cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met for LRIP).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Operating at LRIP rate production

Production planning and control measures in place and working

Initiate analysis for full rate production planning and control
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-9 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 21 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 9 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Processes Proven. Manufacturing line operating at desired initial sigma level. Stable production. 

Design stable, few or no design changes. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level. 

Affordability issues built into initial production and evolutionary acquisition milestones. Cost estimates <110% cost goals 

or meet cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-9

Actual system fully demonstrated

Stable LRIP production and meeting LRIP cost targets

Full scale production decision made

Risk Element - 2

Design

Design for Manufacturing

Design changes eliminated or minimized

Major design features stable and proven in test and evaluation.

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and components?

IPT integrates manufacturing needs into overall product plan

System design is low risk for manufacturing

“Design to Cost” criteria maintained

Plans in place to mitigate schedule delays

Risk Element - 3

Materials

Material Availability & Handling

All materials are in production and readily available

All materials meet planned low rate production schedules.

Full rate manufacturing material needs are identified
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-9 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 22 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 9 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Processes Proven. Manufacturing line operating at desired initial sigma level. Stable production. 

Design stable, few or no design changes. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level. 

Affordability issues built into initial production and evolutionary acquisition milestones. Cost estimates <110% cost goals 

or meet cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

LRIP cost goals and production goals met or at < 110% of cost

Cost Drivers

Cost center accumulates cost data and reports results on regular basis

Costs are traceable to manufacturing process steps and monitored for future potential 

improvement

Cost to achieve full rate production including non-recurring costs identified and funds 

requested

Cost Reduction Plan

Cost model developed for full rate production

Full rate cost model includes continuous improvement

Lean practices analysis for full rate production initiated

Risk Element - 5

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Machines and tooling for full rate production under evaluation

LRIP production risks are being monitored

Manufacturing Process Control

All LRIP manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level 

Full rate process control concepts under development
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-9 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 23 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 9 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Processes Proven. Manufacturing line operating at desired initial sigma level. Stable production. 

Design stable, few or no design changes. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level. 

Affordability issues built into initial production and evolutionary acquisition milestones. Cost estimates <110% cost goals 

or meet cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Metrology program in place for equipment, tooling and testing calibration

Quality strategy under evaluation for full rate production

Machines, tooling and inspection and test equipment deliver or appropriate quality level 

in low rate production

Supply Chain Quality 

Subcontractor and suppliers quality programs reviewed and accepted / changed

Risk Element - 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Plans are in place for full rate production training

Risk Element - 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Non-recurring cost associated with facility requirements for FRP have been identified

Facility upgrades to full rate production initiated.

Facilities certification for full rate production initiated
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-9 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 24 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 9 

Worksheet1

Manufacturing Processes Proven. Manufacturing line operating at desired initial sigma level. Stable production. 

Design stable, few or no design changes. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level. 

Affordability issues built into initial production and evolutionary acquisition milestones. Cost estimates <110% cost goals 

or meet cost goals (e.g., design to cost goals met).

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Operating at LRIP rate production

Initiate analysis of full rate production throughput

Full rate production planning and control measures under development
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-10 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 25 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 10 

Worksheet1

Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place. The system, component or item is in full rate 

production. Technologies have matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with the 

Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. System, components or items are in full rate production 

and meet all engineering, performance, quality and reliability requirements. All materials, manufacturing processes and 

procedures, inspection and test equipment are in production and controlled to six-sigma or some other appropriate quality 

level. Rate production unit costs meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. Lean practices are 

well established and continuous process improvements are ongoing.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 1

Technology and Industrial Base

Technical Maturity

Program has achieved TRL-9

Production products meet all engineering and functional requirements

All system development and design targets are met.

Stable full rate production and meeting FRP cost targets

Risk Element - 2

Design

Design for Manufacturing

Design changes eliminated

Does manufacturing plan evaluate the producibility of system and 

components?

Low risk system design proven

“Design to Cost” criteria met

Risk Element - 3

Materials

Material Availability & Handling

Full scale manufacturing materials needs are met
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-10 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 26 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 10 

Worksheet1

Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place. The system, component or item is in full rate 

production. Technologies have matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with the 

Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. System, components or items are in full rate production 

and meet all engineering, performance, quality and reliability requirements. All materials, manufacturing processes and 

procedures, inspection and test equipment are in production and controlled to six-sigma or some other appropriate quality 

level. Rate production unit costs meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. Lean practices are 

well established and continuous process improvements are ongoing.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 4

Cost and Funding

Design to Cost

FRP cost goals and production goals met.

Cost Drivers

Cost to achieve full rate production verified and allocated

Cost Reduction Plan

Full rate production meets cost model target

Full rate cost model includes continuous improvement and lean practices

Risk Element - 5

Process Capability and Control

Manufacturing Processes

Machines and tooling for full rate production installed and operational

FRP production risks are being monitored

Manufacturing Process Control

All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level

Full rate process control concepts development and functional
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-10 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 27 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 10 

Worksheet1

Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place. The system, component or item is in full rate 

production. Technologies have matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with the 

Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. System, components or items are in full rate production 

and meet all engineering, performance, quality and reliability requirements. All materials, manufacturing processes and 

procedures, inspection and test equipment are in production and controlled to six-sigma or some other appropriate quality 

level. Rate production unit costs meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. Lean practices are 

well established and continuous process improvements are ongoing.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 6

Quality

Quality Strategy

Metrology program in place for production equipment, tooling and testing 

calibration

Quality strategy in place for full rate production

Machines, tooling and inspection and test equipment deliver or appropriate 

quality level in full rate production

Supply Chain Quality 

Subcontractor and suppliers quality programs reviewed and accepted

Risk Element - 7

Personnel

Specialty Skills & Training

Full rate production training completed

Risk Element - 8

Facilities

Facility Requirements

Facility upgrades to full rate production in place.

Facilities certification at full rate production in place
Appendix B 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL-10 for PEM Pre-Automotive Applications 

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Appendix B - 28 

Manufacturing 

Readiness Level 10 

Worksheet1

Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place. The system, component or item is in full rate 

production. Technologies have matured to at least TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with the 

Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. System, components or items are in full rate production 

and meet all engineering, performance, quality and reliability requirements. All materials, manufacturing processes and 

procedures, inspection and test equipment are in production and controlled to six-sigma or some other appropriate quality 

level. Rate production unit costs meet goals, and funding is sufficient for production at required rates. Lean practices are 

well established and continuous process improvements are ongoing.

Application PEM Stacks and PEM Systems

Status

Risk Element - 9

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, and Control

Manufacturing Strategy and Planning

Operating at full rate production

Full rate production planning and control measures in place

 

1

 Department of Defense “Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook”, September,2003

Department of Defense MRL GUIDE 2007.

“Department of Defense, Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook”, 25 March 2008 

Air Force Transition Readiness Level Calculator, Version 2.2

 “Hydrogen Program Manufacturing Readiness Levels Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells”, DJW to MU, May, 2008

 “Briefing on MRLs”. M. Ulsh and D. Wheeler to Department of Energy, May, 2008
Appendix C 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Industry Interview Questions

Appendix C - 1 

4. Scalable technology prototypes have been produced in laboratory 

Technical Maturity

5. Prototype materials, prototype components, tooling and test equipment in 

development for pilot line production, but manufacturing process still in 

development 

a. Trade studies and laboratory experiments under way to define critical 

manufacturing processes

b. Subcontractors are identified

6. Trade studies and laboratory experiments to define critical manufacturing 

processes complete

a. Critical manufacturing processes prototyped 

b. Successful system manufacture on pilot line demonstrated 

7. Components are representative of production components; and materials, 

manufacturing processes, and manufacturing procedures initially demonstrated on 

pilot line

8. Manufacturing processes demonstrated at low rate initial production (LRIP) on 

pilot line

a. Components are form, fit and function compatible with operational system 

9. Stable LRIP production and meeting LRIP cost targets

a. Actual system fully demonstrated

b. Full scale production decision made 

10. Stable full rate production (FRP); and meeting FRP cost targets 

4. Integrated Product Team (IPT) been formed that includes manufacturing and 

engineering 

Design

a. IPT is guided by “Design to Cost” criteria 

b. The component and hardware requirements are established

5. There are significant design and engineering changes 

a. IPT has established design and manufacturing approach 

b. Configuration management process is tracking subcontractors 

6. IPT integrates manufacturing needs into overall product plan 

a. “Design to Cost” criteria maintained

b. Frequent design changes still occur 

7. Configuration management and engineering change process are in place for 

production and subcontractors 

a. System design is low risk for manufacturing 

b. Design changes decrease significantly

8. All critical product and process technologies and their status are defined; and 

design is stable, with few or no design changes 

9. Design changes eliminated or minimized

10. Design changes eliminated and “Design to Cost” criteria met

4. Exotic / high cost materials identified and this issue is being addressed

Materials
Appendix C 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Industry Interview Questions

Appendix C - 2 

5. Material standardization plan developed

6. Material control and inventory control processes in place 

a. Environmental issues with materials addressed

7. Procurement plan in place and materials available in “production quantities” 

a. Pre-production system hardware is available, although quantities may be 

limited

8. Make / Buy decisions and Bill of Materials complete and support LRIP

9. All materials meet planned LRIP schedules

a. FRP material needs are identified

10. Full scale manufacturing materials needs are met

4. The total system cost goals are available to the IPT and are used to guide the 

system design

Cost and Funding

a. Manufacturing cost drivers identified 

5. Investment needs for process and tooling are determined; and Make / Buy 

program initiated

a. Cost reduction plan is operational and contributing to reducing cost 

b. Cost model is developed 

c. Subcontractors and suppliers cost control identified 

6. Cost center accumulates cost data and reports results on regular basis

a. Costs are traceable to manufacturing process steps

b. Cost model is contributing to cost reduction program 

7. Analyses of non-recurring engineering and capital costs for LRIP are completed

a. Cost mitigation plans are developed 

b. Program continues to make progress to cost goals 

8. Cost estimates < 125% of cost goals

a. Cost mitigation incorporated in cost reduction plan

b. Initiate analysis for non-recurring capital and engineering costs for FRP 

c. Cost model is mature, no changes to model and model is contributing to 

cost reduction program 

9. LRIP cost goals and production goals met or at < 110% of cost 

a. Cost to achieve FRP including non-recurring costs are identified and funds 

are requested

b. Cost model developed for FRP

10. FRP cost goals and production goals met 

a. FRP meets cost model target

b. Full rate cost model includes continuous improvement and lean practices

4. Manufacturing State-of-the-Art identified

Process Capability and Controls

a. Key manufacturing processes are identified and assessed in the laboratory

b. Manufacturing processes that need to be developed are identified

5. Key manufacturing processes assessed for pilot line 
Appendix C 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Industry Interview Questions

Appendix C - 3 

a. Processes that require major production-scale related changes are 

identified

6. Production issues identified and major issues resolved 

a. Prototype process demonstrations are complete

b. Analysis of production throughput completed using pilot line

c. Yield issues understood and major issues resolved

7. Process tooling and inspection / test equipment demonstrated on pilot line for LRIP

a. Manufacturing processes generally well understood 

b. Process equipment enables pre-production quality of system prototype 

c. Maintainability, reliability, and supportability data for manufacturing 

processes is above 60% of total needed

8. Manufacturing processes demonstrate acceptable yield

a. LRIP production levels achieved; and maintainability, reliability, and 

supportability data collection for manufacturing processes has been 

completed

b. Manufacturing process controlled to appropriate quality level 

c. Quality trend and failure analysis operational for continuous process 

control 

9. All LRIP manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality level

a. Machines and tooling for FRP under evaluation 

10. Machines and tooling for FRP installed and operational 

a. All manufacturing processes controlled to 6-sigma or appropriate quality 

level

4. Continuous process improvement program in place and working 

Quality

a. Metrology program in place 

5. Quality and reliability levels established

a. Quality and reliability requirements flowed down to subcontractors 

6. Quality organization operating to established quality goals 

a. Metrology program is in place for production equipment, tooling and 

testing calibration

b. Statistical process control capability in place

i. Subcontractor and suppliers quality programs reviewed and 

accepted / changed

7. Quality and reliability levels established

a. Quality program part of continuous process improvement program

8. Machines, tooling, and inspection and test equipment deliver appropriate quality 

level at LRIP

a. Quality strategy under evaluation for FRP

9. Machines, tooling, and inspection and test equipment deliver appropriate quality 

level at FRP

a. Metrology program in place for production equipment, tooling and testing 

calibration

b. Quality strategy in place for FRP
Appendix C 

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

PEM Fuel Cell Stacks and PEM Systems

Industry Interview Questions

Appendix C - 4 

4. Training programs necessary for specialty skills identified

Personnel

a. Training programs identified for process control and quality

6. Funding for training is in place

a. Training program necessary for specialty skills and for process control and 

quality in place 

7. All training programs in place and operational 

8. Specialty skills verified on pilot line

a. Training part of continuous improvement program 

9. Plans in place for FRP training

10. FRP training completed

4. Non-recurring costs associated with facility requirements are documented

Facilities

a. Facility resource requirements are documented

5. Facility changes initiated that are consistent with proposed LRIP production 

levels

6. Facility changes underway that are consistent with proposed LRIP production 

levels

7. Facility changes near completion that are consistent with proposed LRIP 

production levels 

8. Facilities in place for LRIP production; and facilities certification for LRIP is 

completed

a. All non-recurring costs associated with facilities documented

9. Identified non-recurring cost associated with facility requirements for FRP

a. Facility upgrades to full rate production initiated 

b. Facilities certification for FRP initiated

10. Facility upgrades for FRP in place; and facilities certification for FRP in place

4. Manufacturing strategy developed

Manufacturing Planning, Scheduling, Control

a. A manufacturing control hierarchy is in place 

5. Manufacturing plan is developed, working, and being reviewed; and 

manufacturing flow chart completed 

6. Manufacturing plan updated and evaluated with risk plan; and critical schedule 

paths are identified

7. Production planning is complete; ready for LRIP 

a. Delivery schedules meet program needs

8. Operating at LRIP rate production 

a. Initiate analysis for FRP planning and control 

9. FRP planning and control measures under development; and initiate analysis of 

FRP throughput 

10. Operating at FRP; and FRP planning and control measures in place 
F1147-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

Revised February 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment for Fuel Cell Stacks and 

Systems for the Back-up Power and Material Handling Equipment 

Emerging Markets

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

D. Wheeler and M. Ulsh

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-560-45406

5e. TASK NUMBER

H2791191

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-560-45406

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report details NREL's activity to address the need to understand the current status and associated risk levels of 

the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell industry. This revision supercedes the May 2009 version.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

PEM; fuel cell; manufacturing; manufacturing readiness level; production; back-up; material handling

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18