Preview
1 TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907
2
KASSOUNI LAW
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 604
FlLEO/ENOORSEiD
3 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916)930-0030 SEP 2 7 2022
4 Facsimile: (916) 930-0033
By; E. Macdonald
E-Mail: Timothy@Kassounilaw.com Deputy Clerk
5
6 Attomeys for Plaintiffs
FIRE GUARD CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN
7 SHAILANGIAN, and JUAN CARLOS DEL TORO TREJO
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
ro
10
ro FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS
o
O
I 11 BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an
O
ro
Ov individtial; arid CALIFORNIA FIRE
•?r .—V
— VO 12 PROTECTION COALITION, a Califomia
00 —
^ 2 wo 0 \
<. oo
Ov "—'
13 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL
= < 'i TORO TREJO. an individual, PLAINTIFFS FIRE GUARD
" U
O o
o" •
c ®
14 i CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN
OO o. ' Plaintiffs, SHAHANGIAN, AND JUAN CARLOS
2 tE s 15
eg
O
o
DEL TORO TREJO'S EVIDENCE IN
wo
•a- u. o 16 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
VO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
5 CALIFpRMA DEPARTMENT OF
17 ADJUDICATION
^2 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION;
18 CALIFORNL^ OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL; DENNIS MATHISEN, in Date: October 11,2022
19 his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; Time: 1:30 p.m.
20 JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official Dept.: 53
capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshall; and Trial Date: December 5,2022
21 and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
t
!
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
-FlLED_BY_FAa
by Rft-arCityProcessService.com
1 Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, and Juan Carlos Del Toro
2 Trejo (collectively "Plaintiffs") submit the following evidence in opposition to Defendants'
3 Motion for Siunmary Adjudication.
4
INDEX OF EVIDENCE
5
6
Exhibits Exhibit No.
7
8 National Fire Protection Agency Study [Excerpts]
9
ro
ro 10 Update of Initial Statement of Reasons [Cover Page]
O
O
I
O
ro
Ov
11
o rr ^
— VO.
oo —
i n Ov
12
_i Ov ^ DATED!: September 27, 2022 KASSOUNI LAW
U a. 13
6- •
14
00
< r"?
D.
m
wo
11 15 By:
TIMQTHY-^. KASSOUNI
^ 5^ 16 Attomeys for Plaintiffs
VO
Ov
lU
FIRE GUARD CORPORATION, BAHMAN
17 BRLAN SHAHANGIAN, and JUAN CARLOS
18 DEL TORO TREJO
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
-2-
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT 1
U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH SPRINKLERS
JOHN R. HALL, JR.
June 2013
National Fire Protection Asisbciatton
Fire Analysis arid Reseairch Division
AFESC-RF 0144
Abstract
Autoniatic .sprinklers are liighly effective eleriients of total system designs for fire protection in
buildings. They save lives arid properly, producing large reductions in the number of deaths per
thousand fires, in average direct property damage per fire, and especially in the likelihood of a
fire with large loss of life, or large property loss, In 2009, 4.6% of occupied hpriies (Including
aparhnents) had sprinklers, upfrorn3.9% in20C)7, and 18.5% of occupied homes built in the
previous Tour years had sprinklers. In 2007-201 J.firesin all .t>'pes of siTuctures, when sprinkiers
were present in the fire area of a fire large enough to activate sptinklers in a building not under
.constmction. sprinklers operated 91% of die time. When they operated, they vvere efTeictive '96%
of the time, resulting in a combined perfoimance of operating effectively in 87% of reported fires
where sprinklers were present in the fire area and fire was large enough to activate sprinklers. In'
homes (including aparmients), wet-pipe sprinklers operated,effectively 92% of the time. Wlien
wet-pipe sprinklers were present in the fire area in homes that were not under con.stnjctioni the
fue death rate per 1,000 reported sliucture fures was lower by 82%, and the rate of property
damage per reported home structure fire was lower by 68%. In all structures, not just homes;,
when sprinklers of any type failed to operate,, the reason most often given (64% of failures) was
shutoff of the system before fire began.
Keywords; fire sprinklers, fire statistics, automatic extinguishing systems, automatic
suppression systems
Acknowledgements
The National Fire Protection Association ihanks.all diefire.departmentsand state fire .authorities;
who participate in the National Fire liicident Reporting Systerii (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA.
fu-e experience survey. Tliesefirefightei-sare the original sources of the detailed data thai nqiake
this analysis possible. Their contiibulions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem. We
are also gratetul tb the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating and
maintaining NFIRS. For more information about the National ,Fire Protection Association, visit,
www.nfoa.ora or call 617-770-3000. To leam more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to
WAVw.nfpa.orti/osds or call 61-7-984-7443.
Copies of this report are available from:
National Fire Protection Association
One-Stop Data Siiop
! Batter>'niarch Park
Quincy,MA 02169-7471
wyw.nfpa.org
e-mail: osdsffl)nl"pn.ora
phone: 617-984-7443
NFPANo. USSI4
(•;opvTiehHD20)3. Niiiioiial Kirc-PAittdion As.-;ui;iation. Quincy. MA
AFESC-RF 0145
Execiitive Summary
Automatic sprinklers are liigldy effective and reliable elements of total system designs for fire
protection in buildings. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey, in 2009, 4.6% of
occupied homes (includtng tnulti-unit) had sprinklers, up from 3.9% in 2007,.and 18.5% of
occupied home budt in the previous four years had sprinklers.
Of reported 2007-2011 stnicture fires, an esrimated 10% showed sprinklers present."* Sprinklers
vVere reported as present in 57% of reported tires in health caie properties. High-rise apartment
buildings (47%>), manufacturing faciliiies (48%), passenger tenninals (51 %>), hotels and motels
(52%), prisons and jails (53%), dormitories and barracks (53%), and high-rise office buildings
(63%), all had sprinklers reported in roughly half or more of reported structure fires. In ever>'
oUier property uses, more than half of all reported iires were reported as sprinklers not present.
Sprinklers are still rare in educational properties (36% offires),stores and offices (24%o), public
assembly properties (23%), and especially ht)mes (6%), where mo.st fire deailis occur. There is
considerable potential for expanded use of sprinklers tb reduce the loss of life and property to fure.
i .,\s defined in NFPA 13. section 3.4, a wet pipe sprinkler system has sprinklers attached to a.
I pipirig system containing water so that water discharges immediately from sprinklers opened by
\ heat from a fire, while a d.n' pipe sprinkler system htis sprinklers attached to a pipina system
i CQntaining air or nitrogen under pressure so lhal spriidtler activation releases the air or nitrogen,
i .. allowing water pressure to open a valve and water to flow into the piping.system and out the
I op'eried sprinklers.
i • ' -. '
i Withjwet-pipeJsprinkJers the fire death rate per 1,000 reported.home strucmre fires v.-as lower by
I S2%.and the rate of property damage per reported.home sti-ucture fire was lower by 68%. For
j more on NFPA's Home Fire Sprinkler Initiative, go to http:/Avww.firesprinklerinitiative.ora.
i
j Sprinkler systems arc carefully designed to activute early in a real fire (responding to heat not
I smoke) but not to activate in arion-firesiuiation. Eacli spririkler reacts only to die fire condidons
f iri ife area. Water reiea.se in a
I had to suppress die fire, because later action means more fire, which means more water is needed.
I Water release with no fire is rare compared to water release in response lo a fire.
f
s Sprinkler.s operated in 91 % of all reported structure fires large enough to activate sprinklers.
I excluding buildings under construction and buildings without sprinklers in the fire area. VvTien
I spririlders operated, they were effective 96% of the time, resulting in a combined performance of
I operating effectively in 87% of all reported fu es where sprinklers were present in the fire area and
'i fire was large enough to activate them. The more widely used wet pipe sprinklers operated
II effectively 89% of the rime, while dry pipe sprinklers operated effectively in 76% of cases.
Ir. ' '
* Iticsc eaiinaics im projectiuiiis bastd on the detailed inroiisititlon collected in Vcisidn >.0 ot lhe U..S. Fire Administrulion's Nniionnl !-ir< Incidetii
I Keponmg S)-sii;m (NFIRS 5.0.) cind die NFf'A's suuiua!firedcpurtmsnl e.-ifrcritnci; survey In diis repon.fire.sare excluded irihey.invulvis buildings
I; undo consttuciion oi failute or incncch'vcucss bectuise of u lack of sprinklers in the fire area. Because fires reponcd usconfiiicd fires are u.sually
rcporteiS witltoul sptiiiklet perfomtanct d«tnils or ai lirM loo small lo ociivatc operaliitg cijuipmcni. voiilintd.lirei arc not rnclmled in any analy-sii'
'i J involvuig reliability nr cfTcctiventss of a»lornul4C extinguishing equipment. See Appendixes A and I) for ndditionol demils of sralisiienl
!; ' niclhodology. incliidirig,ihc disliiiciion belweeii cimfincd and non-cbtifinol fiics,-
ii
\- (J.S. E.xpciiencij Wilh Sprinklers. 6/13 i NFPA Kite AjVi^lysi.s and Rcseardi, Quincy. M.\
A F E S C - R F 0146
When sprinklers fail, to operate, the reason most often given (64% of failures) was.shutoff ofdie
'sysbm occur in the course of routine inspection or maintenance; .Other
leading reasoiis included manual intervention.that defeated the system (k7%), lack of maintenance
{6%X'.:and inappropriate systein for the tj'peoffire: (5%). Oiity 7% of sprinkler failures were
attributed to cornponent darnage.
When sprinklers operatefeutarc ineffective, the reason usually had to do with an insufficiency of
vvat^r applied to the fire, either because water did not reach the fire (44% of cases of ineffective
perfPr^iTiaiicej pr because not enough water was released (30% of cases of ineffecdve
perfprihances). Other feading reasons were systein.component diamage.(8%o), manual iritervention
that'defeated the system (7%), lack of maintenance (7%j), .and inapproprialie system for die type of
fire(^%).
U.S. E.ypcrience it'irii Sprinklers. 6/13 NFPA l~lre Analysis and Research, Quincy. MA
AFESC-RF 0147
Sectioii 3. Reliability and Effectiveness
Sprinitlers operated la 91?/o of reported structure fires where sprinklers were present,
1 cxclading buildings under construction, partial lastaUations, and sraall fires.
I liable 3.-1 shows:
i 8 , lhe number of structurefiresper year where sprinklers were present,
[ e the percentage of fires where sprinklers operated,
i , • ' the percentage of operating equipment cases where sprinklers were effe^^
I • the percentage offireswhere sprinklers operated effectively (i.e.i operated and^w^
j effective).
I Table 3-1 also shows these sladstics for specific types of sprinklers (specifically, for wet pipe,
j add dry pipe sprinklers). For example, the percentage of fires where sprinklers operated was:
I » 92% for wet pipe sprinklers, and
I <» 81% for dry pipe sprinklers.
i
I For sprinklers that operated, sprinkler performance was deemed effective in 96% of the
j casesi and sprinklers operated effectively 87% of the time (96% times 91%).
I The percentage of fues where sprinklers operated effectively was as follows for specific types of
i jspfinklers:
; « 89%) for wet pipe sprinklers, and
\ « 76%> for dry pipe sprinklers.
:Wel p^^ipf'sprirdders are more reliable than dry' pipe sprinklers and more effective when they
operate;^ resulting in a higher percentage of effective operation.
A disadvantage of measuring sprinkler effectiveness by judgments made in incident reportS';is the
ainbiguity and subjectivity of the criterion of "effective," which has never been precisely
defined, let alone supported by an operational assessment protocol that coiUd be executed
corisistemly by different people.
VWtien^^^^ deemed to be a failure (did not operate) or ineffective (operated
buVnpf effective), reasons for failure or ineffective can be reported:
o System shut off
• Not enough agent (water) discharged to control the fire
« Agent (water) discharged but did not reach the fire
e Inappropriate system; for type of fire
o Fire not in area protected by Uie system
« System component(s) damaged
o Lack of maintenance, including corrosion or heads painted
« Manual intervention defeated the system
o "Odier" reason
• Undetermined reason
U.S. Experience With Sprinklers. 6/13 7 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy. MA
A F E S C - R F 0159
1
Some combinations of coded entries are inconsistent (e.g., system ppenated but was not effective^
and reason for ineffectiveness was systems shut off). The text bo.x on Database Edits provides a
detailed description of steps in the analysis designed to address these iticonsistencies.
Database Edits
In priJcr to estimate reliability and effectiveness, the database must first be edited to remove fires,
buildings,.and systems where operation cannot be expected, such as buildings under construction.
Statistics on reliability and effectiveness exclude partial systems. vvhether identified by coding under
sprinkSer presence or identified by reason for failure and inefTectiveness as equipment not ih area of fire.
Not all partial systems will be'so identified and the codes and standards for many types of sprinklers do
not require coverage ia ali areas. For example, concealed spaces and exterior locations may not be
required to have coverage.
The coding of reasons for failure or ineffectiveness has been used in this analysis to recode system
perfonnance entries. First,fireswith reason for failure or ineffectiveness coded as sprinklers not in fire
area are excluded from analysis because relijibilitj'.and efiTectiveness cannot be judged in those situations,
Second, tlie coding of perfonnance ais failure or ineffective is changed if that coding is inconsistent with
the corrrian(:e = Failed to Operate
Then Change to:
N oi ewofigh agCDt^OR Pmorniance - Not effecti% c
Agentididn't reach fire
I'^inaiily^'fires with for failure or iricffectiyeness listed as" orblank'
i iu;e.pi^ reasons. There iS no Way to know whether fires coded with
X^'oihef fy^t^ fo; failure or irieffe^^^ coded rea >on3. had reason unknown. /
The follpwing reasons for failure or ineffectiveness may be difficult to translate into a particular
one qf the NFIRS 5.0 reasons,'even though they are not necessarily distinct, separate reasons ,
themselves:
• Specific design of sprinkler system proves inadequate to the size or location of fire, even
though the type of sprinkler system is considered appropriate, to die property use and
hazard under applicable standards; or
« Poor or obsolete (no longer compliant with current standards and codes) design installation,
which does not take the form of an inappropriate type of system or of damaged
components.
These reasons for failure or ineffectiveness could be coded as inappropriate system, component
darnage, or lack of maintenance, even though circumstances do not fit these designations well.
Alteniatively, these reasons could be coded in terms of their effect on perfonnance, as not enough
water released or water did not reach fire. If there is not a good fit between circumstances and
U.S. Experience tVith Sprinklers, 6/15 NFPA Fire Analysis and Restjarch, Quincy, MA
AFESC-RF 0160
• • • ' L'
specific wording of reason for failure or ineffectiveness, or if the circunisiances mightfittwo or
more of the coded categdriiss equaiiy well, the report might use "Other".
Because the hard-to-c6de circumstances do not constitute, a clearly distinct failure mode, die
atialysis approach used here of basing percentages oh the known and classified responses is still
reasonable. Hoxyever, it is wordi mentioning these two groups of circumstances ih any discussion
of reasons fbr failure or ineffectiveness, and this report will do so.
Niearly two-thirds (64%) of sprinkler failures occurred because the system was shut off.
Table 3-2 provides the percentages of reasons for failure, after recoding, by type of sprinkler and
prpperty use in 2007-2011. Odier or unclassified reason for failure is treated as an unknown and
allocated.
For all types of sprinklers cpmbiiied:
• 64% of failures to operate were attributed to the equipmenl being shut off,
o 17% were because manual intervention defeated the equipment,
« 7% were because a component was damaged,
• 6% were because of lack of maintenance, and
o S% •were because the equipmenl was inappropriate for the type of fire.
If manual intervention occurs before fire begins, one would expect that to be coded as system shut
off before fire. If manual intervention occurs after sprinklers operate, one would expect that tp
constitute ineffective perfonnance, not failure to operate. What is left is manual intervebtion after
fire:begii;)5 biil before sprinlders opelrate, biit we do not know whether that is the oidy conditibn
associated vrith coding as thanviai intery^
^5 ndrcd in the bullets above, only 7% -were because of a failing of the equipment rather than, a
failing of (he people who de.signed. selected, maintained; and operated the equipment. If thefie
humin failings could be eliminated, the overall sprinkler failure rate would drop frorn ithe
estinMated 9% of reportedfii'esto 0.6%. That is clo.se to the sprinkler failure rate reported in the
inid-i980s by Marry'att^ for Is'ew Zealand, where high standards of maintenanee'
were reportedly commonplace.
TraitiiDg can sharplyreducethe likelihood of three other causes of failure ~r system defeating due
to manual intervention, lack of maintenance, and installation of the vvrong system for the hazard.
Most cases of sprinkjcr LuefTectivcness ia non-confmedfireswere because water did not
reach the fire (44%) or because not enough water was released (30%).
Table 3-3 provides distributions of reasons for ineffectiveness, by property class and type of
automatic extingiiislung equipment. In Table 3-3, two o f the reasons for ineffectiveness are
(extinguishing) agent did not reach the fire and not enough (extinguishing) agent was released.
For sprinklers, the agent is water. In addition to the two reasons cited, other reasons for sprinkler
ineffectiveness for all structures were damage to a system component (8%), defeating due to
* H.VV. Manyail, Fire: .4 Century of .^uidmaiic Sprinkk'.r Protection in Attsiralta and Sc^v Ze 1886-1986, 2"* edition.
Victoria, Auairalia: Australian Fiic Proieaion Associulion, 1988,
U.S. Experience Wilh Sprinklers, 6/13 9 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
AFESC-RF 0161
manual intervention (7%b), lack of maintenance (IVo), and inappropriate equipment for the type
offire(5%).
Insufficient (not enough) water can be released if there are problems with the system's water
supply. This reason for ineffectiveness can i ^ overlap widi other reasons, such as
inappropriate equipnient (if, for example, the hazard has changed under die equipment and now
requires a higher water flow density than is provided by the now inappropriate equipment) and
defeating by manual intervention (if, for example, the sprinklers are turned off prematurely so
that insufficient water reaches the fure). Insufficient water also could he one of the reasons that
could be cited if a flashfireor a fire with several points of origin overv^helms the system or if an
explosion reduces the water flow but does not cause complete system failure.
There are a number of different ways in which water nmy not reach the fire. One is shielded
fires such as rack storage in a property with ceiling sprinklers otdy. Another is fire spread above
exposi^d sprinklers, through unsprinklered concealed spaces, or viia exterior surfaces. Ahpther
reason' would be a deep-seated fire in bulk storage. A different kind of problem would be droplet
sizes that are too sniail to penetrate the buoyant fire plunae and reach the seat of the fire.
A blockage in the pipes (e.g., due to mussels) diat reduces but may not completely interrupt the
flow of water might be coded as insufficient water, water did not reach fire, or even lack of
maintenance.
Even a well-rnaintained, complete, appropriate systern requires the support of a wellrconsidered
integrated design for all the other elements of the building's fire protecfion. Utisatisfactpry.
sprir^lerperforrnance can resultfiroman inadequate water supply or uhiqiie building
' cbnst'-uction features. More broadly, unsatisfactprj'fireprotection perfonnance can occur if die?
building's design does not address all fiye elements of an integrated system - slowing the growth
of fire, automatic detection, automatic suppression, confining the fue, and occupant evacuation.
Effectiveness should be measured relative to the design objectives for a particular system.
Fbr rnost rooms in most properties, sprinklers are designed to confinefireto the room of origin,
Some properties have some very large rooms in which the sprinkler installation is designed to
corifmerfire to a design are4 that is much smaller than the entire room. These rooms could [;
inciudeiarge assembly areas; sales, showroom, or performance area.s; and storage areas.
Table 3-A shov/s the percentage offires,by prpperty use, that begin in five types of rooms that
COMW be large enough to have a design area smaller than the entire robni. Many of these rooms
will not be that large. All these rooms combined do not account for a majority offiresin any
type of property, and only scores and offices and warehouses liave more than about one-seventh
of their fires in such rooms.
U:S. Experience With Sprinklers. 6/1 10 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
A F E S C - R F 0162
EXHIBIT 2
OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL
CALIFORNIACODE OF REGULATIONS, TETLE 19, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 5.5
AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS CERTIFICATION
UPDATE OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS:
923, 924, 924.1, 924.2, 924.3, 924.4,. 924.5, 924.7. 924.9, 924.10, 924.11, 924.12,
925/925.1, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939,
940, 941,;942, 943, 944; 945, 946, 947, 947.1, 947.2, 948, 948.1, 949, 950.
i TECHNICAL, THEORETICAL. AND/OR EMPIRICAL STUDY OR REPORT OR
I SIMILAR DOCUMENT RELIED UPON - MATERIALS ADDED TO THE RULEMAKING
I FILE'
I 1, "U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH SPRINKLERS", by John R. Halt.,Jr. This study (dated
i June 2013) was to evaluate the effectiveness of Automatic Sprinkler systems from
j 2007-2011, published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
[ 2: ''Autpmatic Extinguishing Systems Certification Issue" Survey. This fire service'
I ;survey presented on September 15, 2014 tb the Automatic Extinguishing.
I Committee. The sun/ey was taken from July 1, 2014 thru August 1. 2014. The data
I collected came from the following areas.
I , « Fire Service Sun/ey
I » Contractors Survey
I • Complaints filed with OSFM & CSLB
I o Comments from the Public
V • Pictures provided by the Industry
I 3, -Calilornia Licensed Contractor Article, Berrigan, Bob, "Fire Prolection Systems
1 Installers Licensed." Califorriia Licensed Coritractor, Official Publication of the
I Contractors State License Board, Spring of 1990: page 5.
p 4. Union Wage and Benefit Support Document, This is a cost analysis of the "union"
I apprenticeship programs for the State of California. This document was provided by
i; Randy Roxson, who represented the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California qn
I the development workgroup for this proposed regiJlation package on August 13,
g 2015.
5. Non-union Fiscal Impact Document was a cost analysis of the "non-union"
apprenticeship programs for the State of California. This document was provided by
Tom Mckinnon, who represented AFSA National Association on the developrrient
workgroup for this proposed regulation package on August 3, 2015
nov. July 26,2016 1
AFESC-RF 0135
Preview
1 TIMOTHY V. KASSOUNI, SBN 142907 2 KASSOUNI LAW 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 604 FlLEO/ENOORSEiD 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916)930-0030 SEP 2 7 2022 4 Facsimile: (916) 930-0033 By; E. Macdonald E-Mail: Timothy@Kassounilaw.com Deputy Clerk 5 6 Attomeys for Plaintiffs FIRE GUARD CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN 7 SHAILANGIAN, and JUAN CARLOS DEL TORO TREJO 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ro 10 ro FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No: 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS o O I 11 BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an O ro Ov individtial; arid CALIFORNIA FIRE •?r .—V — VO 12 PROTECTION COALITION, a Califomia 00 — ^ 2 wo 0 \ <. oo Ov "—' 13 Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL = < 'i TORO TREJO. an individual, PLAINTIFFS FIRE GUARD " U O o o" • c ® 14 i CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN OO o. ' Plaintiffs, SHAHANGIAN, AND JUAN CARLOS 2 tE s 15 eg O o DEL TORO TREJO'S EVIDENCE IN wo •a- u. o 16 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' VO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 5 CALIFpRMA DEPARTMENT OF 17 ADJUDICATION ^2 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; 18 CALIFORNL^ OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL; DENNIS MATHISEN, in Date: October 11,2022 19 his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; Time: 1:30 p.m. 20 JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official Dept.: 53 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshall; and Trial Date: December 5,2022 21 and DOES 1-10, inclusive, t ! 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -FlLED_BY_FAa by Rft-arCityProcessService.com 1 Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, and Juan Carlos Del Toro 2 Trejo (collectively "Plaintiffs") submit the following evidence in opposition to Defendants' 3 Motion for Siunmary Adjudication. 4 INDEX OF EVIDENCE 5 6 Exhibits Exhibit No. 7 8 National Fire Protection Agency Study [Excerpts] 9 ro ro 10 Update of Initial Statement of Reasons [Cover Page] O O I O ro Ov 11 o rr ^ — VO. oo — i n Ov 12 _i Ov ^ DATED!: September 27, 2022 KASSOUNI LAW U a. 13 6- • 14 00 < r"? D. m wo 11 15 By: TIMQTHY-^. KASSOUNI ^ 5^ 16 Attomeys for Plaintiffs VO Ov lU FIRE GUARD CORPORATION, BAHMAN 17 BRLAN SHAHANGIAN, and JUAN CARLOS 18 DEL TORO TREJO 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 -2- PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION EXHIBIT 1 U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH SPRINKLERS JOHN R. HALL, JR. June 2013 National Fire Protection Asisbciatton Fire Analysis arid Reseairch Division AFESC-RF 0144 Abstract Autoniatic .sprinklers are liighly effective eleriients of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. They save lives arid properly, producing large reductions in the number of deaths per thousand fires, in average direct property damage per fire, and especially in the likelihood of a fire with large loss of life, or large property loss, In 2009, 4.6% of occupied hpriies (Including aparhnents) had sprinklers, upfrorn3.9% in20C)7, and 18.5% of occupied homes built in the previous Tour years had sprinklers. In 2007-201 J.firesin all .t>'pes of siTuctures, when sprinkiers were present in the fire area of a fire large enough to activate sptinklers in a building not under .constmction. sprinklers operated 91% of die time. When they operated, they vvere efTeictive '96% of the time, resulting in a combined perfoimance of operating effectively in 87% of reported fires where sprinklers were present in the fire area and fire was large enough to activate sprinklers. In' homes (including aparmients), wet-pipe sprinklers operated,effectively 92% of the time. Wlien wet-pipe sprinklers were present in the fire area in homes that were not under con.stnjctioni the fue death rate per 1,000 reported sliucture fures was lower by 82%, and the rate of property damage per reported home structure fire was lower by 68%. In all structures, not just homes;, when sprinklers of any type failed to operate,, the reason most often given (64% of failures) was shutoff of the system before fire began. Keywords; fire sprinklers, fire statistics, automatic extinguishing systems, automatic suppression systems Acknowledgements The National Fire Protection Association ihanks.all diefire.departmentsand state fire .authorities; who participate in the National Fire liicident Reporting Systerii (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA. fu-e experience survey. Tliesefirefightei-sare the original sources of the detailed data thai nqiake this analysis possible. Their contiibulions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem. We are also gratetul tb the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating and maintaining NFIRS. For more information about the National ,Fire Protection Association, visit, www.nfoa.ora or call 617-770-3000. To leam more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to WAVw.nfpa.orti/osds or call 61-7-984-7443. Copies of this report are available from: National Fire Protection Association One-Stop Data Siiop ! Batter>'niarch Park Quincy,MA 02169-7471 wyw.nfpa.org e-mail: osdsffl)nl"pn.ora phone: 617-984-7443 NFPANo. USSI4 (•;opvTiehHD20)3. Niiiioiial Kirc-PAittdion As.-;ui;iation. Quincy. MA AFESC-RF 0145 Execiitive Summary Automatic sprinklers are liigldy effective and reliable elements of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey, in 2009, 4.6% of occupied homes (includtng tnulti-unit) had sprinklers, up from 3.9% in 2007,.and 18.5% of occupied home budt in the previous four years had sprinklers. Of reported 2007-2011 stnicture fires, an esrimated 10% showed sprinklers present."* Sprinklers vVere reported as present in 57% of reported tires in health caie properties. High-rise apartment buildings (47%>), manufacturing faciliiies (48%), passenger tenninals (51 %>), hotels and motels (52%), prisons and jails (53%), dormitories and barracks (53%), and high-rise office buildings (63%), all had sprinklers reported in roughly half or more of reported structure fires. In ever>' oUier property uses, more than half of all reported iires were reported as sprinklers not present. Sprinklers are still rare in educational properties (36% offires),stores and offices (24%o), public assembly properties (23%), and especially ht)mes (6%), where mo.st fire deailis occur. There is considerable potential for expanded use of sprinklers tb reduce the loss of life and property to fure. i .,\s defined in NFPA 13. section 3.4, a wet pipe sprinkler system has sprinklers attached to a. I pipirig system containing water so that water discharges immediately from sprinklers opened by \ heat from a fire, while a d.n' pipe sprinkler system htis sprinklers attached to a pipina system i CQntaining air or nitrogen under pressure so lhal spriidtler activation releases the air or nitrogen, i .. allowing water pressure to open a valve and water to flow into the piping.system and out the I op'eried sprinklers. i • ' -. ' i Withjwet-pipeJsprinkJers the fire death rate per 1,000 reported.home strucmre fires v.-as lower by I S2%.and the rate of property damage per reported.home sti-ucture fire was lower by 68%. For j more on NFPA's Home Fire Sprinkler Initiative, go to http:/Avww.firesprinklerinitiative.ora. i j Sprinkler systems arc carefully designed to activute early in a real fire (responding to heat not I smoke) but not to activate in arion-firesiuiation. Eacli spririkler reacts only to die fire condidons f iri ife area. Water reiea.se in a I had to suppress die fire, because later action means more fire, which means more water is needed. I Water release with no fire is rare compared to water release in response lo a fire. f s Sprinkler.s operated in 91 % of all reported structure fires large enough to activate sprinklers. I excluding buildings under construction and buildings without sprinklers in the fire area. VvTien I spririlders operated, they were effective 96% of the time, resulting in a combined performance of I operating effectively in 87% of all reported fu es where sprinklers were present in the fire area and 'i fire was large enough to activate them. The more widely used wet pipe sprinklers operated II effectively 89% of the rime, while dry pipe sprinklers operated effectively in 76% of cases. Ir. ' ' * Iticsc eaiinaics im projectiuiiis bastd on the detailed inroiisititlon collected in Vcisidn >.0 ot lhe U..S. Fire Administrulion's Nniionnl !-ir< Incidetii I Keponmg S)-sii;m (NFIRS 5.0.) cind die NFf'A's suuiua!firedcpurtmsnl e.-ifrcritnci; survey In diis repon.fire.sare excluded irihey.invulvis buildings I; undo consttuciion oi failute or incncch'vcucss bectuise of u lack of sprinklers in the fire area. Because fires reponcd usconfiiicd fires are u.sually rcporteiS witltoul sptiiiklet perfomtanct d«tnils or ai lirM loo small lo ociivatc operaliitg cijuipmcni. voiilintd.lirei arc not rnclmled in any analy-sii' 'i J involvuig reliability nr cfTcctiventss of a»lornul4C extinguishing equipment. See Appendixes A and I) for ndditionol demils of sralisiienl !; ' niclhodology. incliidirig,ihc disliiiciion belweeii cimfincd and non-cbtifinol fiics,- ii \- (J.S. E.xpciiencij Wilh Sprinklers. 6/13 i NFPA Kite AjVi^lysi.s and Rcseardi, Quincy. M.\ A F E S C - R F 0146 When sprinklers fail, to operate, the reason most often given (64% of failures) was.shutoff ofdie 'sysbm occur in the course of routine inspection or maintenance; .Other leading reasoiis included manual intervention.that defeated the system (k7%), lack of maintenance {6%X'.:and inappropriate systein for the tj'peoffire: (5%). Oiity 7% of sprinkler failures were attributed to cornponent darnage. When sprinklers operatefeutarc ineffective, the reason usually had to do with an insufficiency of vvat^r applied to the fire, either because water did not reach the fire (44% of cases of ineffective perfPr^iTiaiicej pr because not enough water was released (30% of cases of ineffecdve perfprihances). Other feading reasons were systein.component diamage.(8%o), manual iritervention that'defeated the system (7%), lack of maintenance (7%j), .and inapproprialie system for die type of fire(^%). U.S. E.ypcrience it'irii Sprinklers. 6/13 NFPA l~lre Analysis and Research, Quincy. MA AFESC-RF 0147 Sectioii 3. Reliability and Effectiveness Sprinitlers operated la 91?/o of reported structure fires where sprinklers were present, 1 cxclading buildings under construction, partial lastaUations, and sraall fires. I liable 3.-1 shows: i 8 , lhe number of structurefiresper year where sprinklers were present, [ e the percentage of fires where sprinklers operated, i , • ' the percentage of operating equipment cases where sprinklers were effe^^ I • the percentage offireswhere sprinklers operated effectively (i.e.i operated and^w^ j effective). I Table 3-1 also shows these sladstics for specific types of sprinklers (specifically, for wet pipe, j add dry pipe sprinklers). For example, the percentage of fires where sprinklers operated was: I » 92% for wet pipe sprinklers, and I <» 81% for dry pipe sprinklers. i I For sprinklers that operated, sprinkler performance was deemed effective in 96% of the j casesi and sprinklers operated effectively 87% of the time (96% times 91%). I The percentage of fues where sprinklers operated effectively was as follows for specific types of i jspfinklers: ; « 89%) for wet pipe sprinklers, and \ « 76%> for dry pipe sprinklers. :Wel p^^ipf'sprirdders are more reliable than dry' pipe sprinklers and more effective when they operate;^ resulting in a higher percentage of effective operation. A disadvantage of measuring sprinkler effectiveness by judgments made in incident reportS';is the ainbiguity and subjectivity of the criterion of "effective," which has never been precisely defined, let alone supported by an operational assessment protocol that coiUd be executed corisistemly by different people. VWtien^^^^ deemed to be a failure (did not operate) or ineffective (operated buVnpf effective), reasons for failure or ineffective can be reported: o System shut off • Not enough agent (water) discharged to control the fire « Agent (water) discharged but did not reach the fire e Inappropriate system; for type of fire o Fire not in area protected by Uie system « System component(s) damaged o Lack of maintenance, including corrosion or heads painted « Manual intervention defeated the system o "Odier" reason • Undetermined reason U.S. Experience With Sprinklers. 6/13 7 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy. MA A F E S C - R F 0159 1 Some combinations of coded entries are inconsistent (e.g., system ppenated but was not effective^ and reason for ineffectiveness was systems shut off). The text bo.x on Database Edits provides a detailed description of steps in the analysis designed to address these iticonsistencies. Database Edits In priJcr to estimate reliability and effectiveness, the database must first be edited to remove fires, buildings,.and systems where operation cannot be expected, such as buildings under construction. Statistics on reliability and effectiveness exclude partial systems. vvhether identified by coding under sprinkSer presence or identified by reason for failure and inefTectiveness as equipment not ih area of fire. Not all partial systems will be'so identified and the codes and standards for many types of sprinklers do not require coverage ia ali areas. For example, concealed spaces and exterior locations may not be required to have coverage. The coding of reasons for failure or ineffectiveness has been used in this analysis to recode system perfonnance entries. First,fireswith reason for failure or ineffectiveness coded as sprinklers not in fire area are excluded from analysis because relijibilitj'.and efiTectiveness cannot be judged in those situations, Second, tlie coding of perfonnance ais failure or ineffective is changed if that coding is inconsistent with the corrrian(:e = Failed to Operate Then Change to: N oi ewofigh agCDt^OR Pmorniance - Not effecti% c Agentididn't reach fire I'^inaiily^'fires with for failure or iricffectiyeness listed as" orblank' i iu;e.pi^ reasons. There iS no Way to know whether fires coded with X^'oihef fy^t^ fo; failure or irieffe^^^ coded rea >on3. had reason unknown. / The follpwing reasons for failure or ineffectiveness may be difficult to translate into a particular one qf the NFIRS 5.0 reasons,'even though they are not necessarily distinct, separate reasons , themselves: • Specific design of sprinkler system proves inadequate to the size or location of fire, even though the type of sprinkler system is considered appropriate, to die property use and hazard under applicable standards; or « Poor or obsolete (no longer compliant with current standards and codes) design installation, which does not take the form of an inappropriate type of system or of damaged components. These reasons for failure or ineffectiveness could be coded as inappropriate system, component darnage, or lack of maintenance, even though circumstances do not fit these designations well. Alteniatively, these reasons could be coded in terms of their effect on perfonnance, as not enough water released or water did not reach fire. If there is not a good fit between circumstances and U.S. Experience tVith Sprinklers, 6/15 NFPA Fire Analysis and Restjarch, Quincy, MA AFESC-RF 0160 • • • ' L' specific wording of reason for failure or ineffectiveness, or if the circunisiances mightfittwo or more of the coded categdriiss equaiiy well, the report might use "Other". Because the hard-to-c6de circumstances do not constitute, a clearly distinct failure mode, die atialysis approach used here of basing percentages oh the known and classified responses is still reasonable. Hoxyever, it is wordi mentioning these two groups of circumstances ih any discussion of reasons fbr failure or ineffectiveness, and this report will do so. Niearly two-thirds (64%) of sprinkler failures occurred because the system was shut off. Table 3-2 provides the percentages of reasons for failure, after recoding, by type of sprinkler and prpperty use in 2007-2011. Odier or unclassified reason for failure is treated as an unknown and allocated. For all types of sprinklers cpmbiiied: • 64% of failures to operate were attributed to the equipmenl being shut off, o 17% were because manual intervention defeated the equipment, « 7% were because a component was damaged, • 6% were because of lack of maintenance, and o S% •were because the equipmenl was inappropriate for the type of fire. If manual intervention occurs before fire begins, one would expect that to be coded as system shut off before fire. If manual intervention occurs after sprinklers operate, one would expect that tp constitute ineffective perfonnance, not failure to operate. What is left is manual intervebtion after fire:begii;)5 biil before sprinlders opelrate, biit we do not know whether that is the oidy conditibn associated vrith coding as thanviai intery^ ^5 ndrcd in the bullets above, only 7% -were because of a failing of the equipment rather than, a failing of (he people who de.signed. selected, maintained; and operated the equipment. If thefie humin failings could be eliminated, the overall sprinkler failure rate would drop frorn ithe estinMated 9% of reportedfii'esto 0.6%. That is clo.se to the sprinkler failure rate reported in the inid-i980s by Marry'att^ for Is'ew Zealand, where high standards of maintenanee' were reportedly commonplace. TraitiiDg can sharplyreducethe likelihood of three other causes of failure ~r system defeating due to manual intervention, lack of maintenance, and installation of the vvrong system for the hazard. Most cases of sprinkjcr LuefTectivcness ia non-confmedfireswere because water did not reach the fire (44%) or because not enough water was released (30%). Table 3-3 provides distributions of reasons for ineffectiveness, by property class and type of automatic extingiiislung equipment. In Table 3-3, two o f the reasons for ineffectiveness are (extinguishing) agent did not reach the fire and not enough (extinguishing) agent was released. For sprinklers, the agent is water. In addition to the two reasons cited, other reasons for sprinkler ineffectiveness for all structures were damage to a system component (8%), defeating due to * H.VV. Manyail, Fire: .4 Century of .^uidmaiic Sprinkk'.r Protection in Attsiralta and Sc^v Ze 1886-1986, 2"* edition. Victoria, Auairalia: Australian Fiic Proieaion Associulion, 1988, U.S. Experience Wilh Sprinklers, 6/13 9 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA AFESC-RF 0161 manual intervention (7%b), lack of maintenance (IVo), and inappropriate equipment for the type offire(5%). Insufficient (not enough) water can be released if there are problems with the system's water supply. This reason for ineffectiveness can i ^ overlap widi other reasons, such as inappropriate equipnient (if, for example, the hazard has changed under die equipment and now requires a higher water flow density than is provided by the now inappropriate equipment) and defeating by manual intervention (if, for example, the sprinklers are turned off prematurely so that insufficient water reaches the fure). Insufficient water also could he one of the reasons that could be cited if a flashfireor a fire with several points of origin overv^helms the system or if an explosion reduces the water flow but does not cause complete system failure. There are a number of different ways in which water nmy not reach the fire. One is shielded fires such as rack storage in a property with ceiling sprinklers otdy. Another is fire spread above exposi^d sprinklers, through unsprinklered concealed spaces, or viia exterior surfaces. Ahpther reason' would be a deep-seated fire in bulk storage. A different kind of problem would be droplet sizes that are too sniail to penetrate the buoyant fire plunae and reach the seat of the fire. A blockage in the pipes (e.g., due to mussels) diat reduces but may not completely interrupt the flow of water might be coded as insufficient water, water did not reach fire, or even lack of maintenance. Even a well-rnaintained, complete, appropriate systern requires the support of a wellrconsidered integrated design for all the other elements of the building's fire protecfion. Utisatisfactpry. sprir^lerperforrnance can resultfiroman inadequate water supply or uhiqiie building ' cbnst'-uction features. More broadly, unsatisfactprj'fireprotection perfonnance can occur if die? building's design does not address all fiye elements of an integrated system - slowing the growth of fire, automatic detection, automatic suppression, confining the fue, and occupant evacuation. Effectiveness should be measured relative to the design objectives for a particular system. Fbr rnost rooms in most properties, sprinklers are designed to confinefireto the room of origin, Some properties have some very large rooms in which the sprinkler installation is designed to corifmerfire to a design are4 that is much smaller than the entire room. These rooms could [; inciudeiarge assembly areas; sales, showroom, or performance area.s; and storage areas. Table 3-A shov/s the percentage offires,by prpperty use, that begin in five types of rooms that COMW be large enough to have a design area smaller than the entire robni. Many of these rooms will not be that large. All these rooms combined do not account for a majority offiresin any type of property, and only scores and offices and warehouses liave more than about one-seventh of their fires in such rooms. U:S. Experience With Sprinklers. 6/1 10 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA A F E S C - R F 0162 EXHIBIT 2 OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL CALIFORNIACODE OF REGULATIONS, TETLE 19, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 5.5 AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS CERTIFICATION UPDATE OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS: 923, 924, 924.1, 924.2, 924.3, 924.4,. 924.5, 924.7. 924.9, 924.10, 924.11, 924.12, 925/925.1, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941,;942, 943, 944; 945, 946, 947, 947.1, 947.2, 948, 948.1, 949, 950. i TECHNICAL, THEORETICAL. AND/OR EMPIRICAL STUDY OR REPORT OR I SIMILAR DOCUMENT RELIED UPON - MATERIALS ADDED TO THE RULEMAKING I FILE' I 1, "U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH SPRINKLERS", by John R. Halt.,Jr. This study (dated i June 2013) was to evaluate the effectiveness of Automatic Sprinkler systems from j 2007-2011, published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). [ 2: ''Autpmatic Extinguishing Systems Certification Issue" Survey. This fire service' I ;survey presented on September 15, 2014 tb the Automatic Extinguishing. I Committee. The sun/ey was taken from July 1, 2014 thru August 1. 2014. The data I collected came from the following areas. I , « Fire Service Sun/ey I » Contractors Survey I • Complaints filed with OSFM & CSLB I o Comments from the Public V • Pictures provided by the Industry I 3, -Calilornia Licensed Contractor Article, Berrigan, Bob, "Fire Prolection Systems 1 Installers Licensed." Califorriia Licensed Coritractor, Official Publication of the I Contractors State License Board, Spring of 1990: page 5. p 4. Union Wage and Benefit Support Document, This is a cost analysis of the "union" I apprenticeship programs for the State of California. This document was provided by i; Randy Roxson, who represented the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California qn I the development workgroup for this proposed regiJlation package on August 13, g 2015. 5. Non-union Fiscal Impact Document was a cost analysis of the "non-union" apprenticeship programs for the State of California. This document was provided by Tom Mckinnon, who represented AFSA National Association on the developrrient workgroup for this proposed regulation package on August 3, 2015 nov. July 26,2016 1 AFESC-RF 0135