Managing Combined-Cycle Power Facility Fire Risk with NFPA 850

Combined-cycle power plants have been gaining popularity as industries and utilities seek to meet growing electricity demands, reduce emissions and lower energy costs. Given increases in anticipated energy consumption, environmental regulations promoting sustainability and emissions reduction, and technological advancements, the number of combined-cycle power plants will only continue to grow over the next ten years.

Combined-cycle as well as simple- cycle gas turbine generating stations are at risk for fire events and create special concerns for life safety. Gas-fired turbine engines, coupled with the presence of extremely hot surfaces and the use of lubricating oils, pose a fire risk. If fire is not recognized and extinguished quickly, it can result in millions of dollars in damage, prolonged downtimes and loss of productivity.

Following the guidance provided by NFPA 850 can help ensure effective fire protection systems and reduce the risk of fire/explosion in combined-cycle power plants, maximizing the safety of personnel, facilities and the community.

Jensen Hughes has had a long-standing involvement on the NFPA 850 technical committee since 2001, providing expert risk assessments, fire protection system design improvements, and comprehensive consulting services tailored to meet NFPA 850 guidelines.

NFPA 850: A Basis for Good Industry Practice

NFPA 850 facilitates a systematic approach to identifying and managing fire and explosion risks in non-nuclear electric generating plants and high-voltage direct current converter power stations.  Prior to the 2026 edition, NFPA 850 provided recommended practices for fire protection in electric generating plants and high voltage direct current converter stations. With an effective date of December 9, 2025, the 2026 edition elevated NFPA 850 from recommended practice to a standard.

The requirements contained in the 2026 edition apply to new facilities and modifications to existing facilities that introduce a different or increased hazard.  The guidance presented in NFPA 850 also provides guidance for protecting plant personnel and the surrounding environment while promoting the protection of critical plant equipment from both an asset replacement and business interruption perspective.

Implementing NFPA 850 typically involves conducting a Fire Risk Evaluation (FRE) and creating a fire protection design basis document (FP DBD). NFPA 850 provides the framework for a FP DBD, which describes the design rationale for a power facility’s fire protection system based on the potential fire/explosion risks and goals, objectives, and criteria established for the acceptable level of fire protection.  Any deviation from NFPA 850 requirements that demonstrates equivalency should be presented to the FP DBD team members and the AHJ and documented in the FP DBD. 

Determining Fire Risk and Recommendations for Protecting Facilities

A Fire Risk Evaluation is essential for identifying fire/explosion risks and developing the DBD. Fire Risk Evaluations help determine the specific hazards and the level of acceptable risk for facilities while providing a basis for recommending fire protection strategies. FREs typically include a qualitative risk assessment to achieve the following goals.

1. Identify the fire and explosion hazards. The plant is subdivided into physical areas from the plot plan, and fire and explosion hazards are identified for each area.
2. Characterize the frequency and consequences of each hazard. The hazards (i.e., ignition sources) and mitigation strategies identified for each area are then used to determine hazard frequency and support a consequence analysis. The consequences of a fire/explosion in each area include the potential for personnel injury, critical asset/function loss, suspended plant operations, and environmental damage. The availability of effective mitigation measures may influence the consequence ranking.
3. Determine the risk results. Using a risk matrix, the resulting risk level for each area (or scenario) is then obtained from the different combinations of frequency and consequence. Areas determined as compliant with the applicable code(s) are typically treated as “adequate for the hazard,” given that the proposed fire protection design is consistent with code requirements/recommendations. This may include areas equipped with (or designated for) automatic suppression consistent with NFPA 850 recommendations as well as areas with no automatic suppression requirements/recommendations, as long as the treatment is consistent with performance-based industry practice.
4. Communicate recommendations. Areas identified as “below standard” from a mitigation strategy perspective are identified in the FRE, along with recommended measures to maintain tolerable risk levels. These measures may include training to heighten awareness or administrative controls to reduce or control the hazard risk.

Mitigate Fire Risks and Ensure Compliance

Developing FREs and DBDs is an iterative process, especially for new installations where the fire mitigation strategies for each area may not have been fully established. Together, the FRE and DBD provide input to the various stakeholders to support decision-making.

Jensen Hughes has considerable experience performing fire risk evaluations for the power industry. In addition to developing FREs and DBD, Jensen Hughes experts can review applicable designs to determine compliance with owner, AHJ, and insurer fire and life safety requirements.