Malibu Blaze Suspects Taken Off Active Duty : Arson: The two firefighters have not yet been charged. Sheriff says investigators believe they have the right men.

Reeling from revelations that two Southern California firefighters are suspected of setting last year’s deadly Malibu-Calabasas blaze, fire officials announced Thursday that both men have been taken off active duty but stressed that no charges have been leveled against either one.

“He has been charged with nothing,” Los Angeles Fire Chief Donald O. Manning said of the suspect who works for his department. “He has been found guilty of nothing. But he has a very big cloud hanging over his head.”

Manning would not disclose the identities of the two suspects, but sources have told The Times that they are Steven R. Shelp, 29, a rookie firefighter with the Los Angeles City Fire Department, and Nicholas A. Durepo, 24, a part-time volunteer firefighter with the Manhattan Beach Fire Department. Both have denied any wrongdoing and have been unavailable for comment.

In Manhattan Beach, Fire Marshal Steve Age said Durepo was placed on administrative leave pending completion of the investigation. Durepo had previously worked as a volunteer firefighter in Culver City but lost that post when his supervisors were told that he was under investigation.

“He was here for about four shifts,” Culver City Capt. Roy Hendricks said. “But basically when the department found out he was being investigated, they let him go.”

Sheriff’s homicide investigators, who are leading the arson probe because it resulted in three deaths, forwarded their completed case to the Los Angeles County district attorney five months ago. But the district attorney’s office still has not decided whether to charge the two, and sources say the inquiry has pitted investigators against prosecutors in a tense standoff.

At a packed morning news conference, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block acknowledged that the case is a complicated, circumstantial one and said he believes that prosecutors are carefully reviewing it. But Block also stressed that investigators believe they have the right men.

“If we did not believe we had a case that was appropriate for requesting a criminal complaint, we would not have submitted this to the district attorney,” Block said at the briefing at Sheriff’s Department headquarters in Monterey Park. “It is our belief these are the persons responsible for the fire.”

That belief is based upon a number of alleged inconsistencies in the version of events provided by Shelp and Durepo during interviews with sheriff’s investigators.

Block said, for example, that the two suspects said they had attached a garden hose to a nearby hydrant to douse the flames as they ignited.

“One of the questions was how do you hook a garden hose up to a fire hydrant?” Block said. “The answer that was given to our investigators was that this unidentified plumber happened to be passing by who had the appropriate connection and they borrowed it from the plumber, who went on his way. We were never able to locate the plumber.”

In addition, authorities say that other accounts provided by Shelp and Durepo did not check out and that both men have failed polygraph examinations, which are generally not admissible in court because of their unreliability.

City Councilman Marvin Braude, who chairs the council’s Public Safety Committee, echoed Block’s confidence in the case and urged the district attorney’s office to take the matter to court.

“I have no reason to think that the sheriff does not have substantial evidence,” Braude said. “I think those charges should be vigorously pursued. I cannot imagine any crime more reprehensible than this one. We must vigorously prosecute serious suspects.”

Although Block declined to discuss the motive for the alleged crime, he said investigators do not believe the fire was maliciously set.

“I cannot look into their minds,” Block said. “But we do not believe the intent was one to cause great destruction.”

Other sources have said investigators believe that Shelp and Durepo set the fire so that they could put it out and be hailed as heroes. Both men have long wanted to be firefighters, and investigators think their plan was intended to bolster their professional standing.

Law enforcement sources said Thursday that the district attorney’s probe is stalled partly by prosecutors’ inability to determine exactly what each of the two men did while they were at the scene where the blaze broke out along Old Topanga Canyon Road. Durepo and Shelp have acknowledged that they were in the area when the fire began on the morning of Nov. 2.

Although investigators believe Shelp and Durepo are being untruthful, one source said detectives have been unable to pinpoint which of them allegedly started the fire.

That evidence, the source said, would prove critical in obtaining a conviction in court.

“Any jury wants to know the role played by each individual,” said the source, who requested anonymity. “That’s where this investigation is lacking.”

The slowness of Los Angeles County prosecutors to conclude their investigation also has raised questions about whether federal authorities might intervene and review the case. Arson is punishable under both state and federal law.

Larry Cornelison, who heads the arson task force of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said his group is assisting investigators on the Malibu fire, but added that “nothing at this point” suggests that federal prosecutors will be called in.

“The only thing that would draw this into the federal arena would be if the district attorney and the sheriff feel it belongs there,” Cornelison said. Officials at the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment.

Durepo and Shelp have been instructed to appear before a Los Angeles County grand jury later this month, and the case against them will not be settled before then, sources said.

At least one of the suspects, Shelp, has told friends that he believes the fire was ignited by a downed power line. Investigators have concluded that it was arson.

According to friends, Shelp and Durepo met at Santa Monica College and share a passion for firefighting.

Paul Stein, a division chief of the Santa Monica Fire Department and part-time fire technology instructor at Santa Monica College, taught Shelp and Durepo in several classes and remembered both as among his finest students.

“A lot of students just come and give lip service, but these guys went after their jobs hard,” Stein said. “I would have loved to have hired both of them.”

Asked whether he believed either of the young men could have started the Nov. 2 fire, Stein responded: “My gut feeling: Absolutely not.”

Yumi Sakaida, a close friend of Shelp, said: “I know he didn’t do anything like that. I know him very well. When he is ready to give his story, I’m sure he will.”

Guy Okazaki, another friend of Shelp who also knows Durepo, said the two men should be treated as heroes for trying to stop the fire, not as suspects for allegedly igniting it.

“If anything, they were the first two heroes of the thousands of firefighters who were heroes in that blaze,” Okazaki said.

At his news conference, Fire Chief Manning said Block had told him on Jan. 5 that his employee was one of two men suspected of setting the fire, which left three people dead and caused more than $375 million in damage. Shelp had entered the Fire Department academy just two days earlier.

“I was literally shocked that a member of the fire service, any fire service, would be thought to be a suspect because the firefighters had performed so heroically during those firestorms,” Manning said, stressing: “He is innocent until proven guilty. I have no thought of dismissing him.”

The chief also said that when he told his employee of the transfer to administrative duties, he took it well: “I believe he said something like ‘That’s fine. I’ll be glad to do that until we get it all straightened out.’ ”

As Los Angeles officials grappled with the news that a city firefighter might be implicated in the devastating blaze, some questioned how Shelp could have been placed on duty at a time when he was a suspect. One City Hall official said several council members were anxious to discuss the matter with Manning, but that same official said Manning and the department were generally held in high regard.

For his part, Manning said his office had not taken any action against Shelp when he first learned of the investigation because there had been no resolution of the case. In addition, Shelp had already been hired and begun attending the academy by the time Manning was informed that he was under investigation by the Sheriff’s Department.

“For us to investigate, we would have to do our own arson investigation of a fire outside the city,” Manning said.

City Council members, meanwhile, urged residents not to rush to judgment in the case and to avoid blaming firefighters generally for the alleged actions of two.

“We cannot let their work and bravery be overlooked by the possible involvement of people who were volunteer firefighters,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, a member of the council’s Public Safety Committee. “The firefighters I know and have met are hard-working and committed individuals who care about our public safety and do not deserve to be painted with a broad brush.”

Times staff writers Alan Abrahamson, Tina Daunt, Nieson Himmel and Josh Meyer contributed to this report.