Environmental Group files Lawsuit against State Fire Marshal over Waivers for Sable Offshore

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.— Linda Krop says there are still unanswered questions after the Office Of The State Fire Marshal granted waivers to Sable Offshore back in December—waivers that will make it a lot easier for the Texas oil company to restart oil production off the Gaviota Coast.

The Environmental Defense Center filed a lawsuit against Sable and the Office of the State Fire Marshal Tuesday.

This comes after months of back-and-forth between environmentalists and state agencies about the legality of Sable offshore restarting the pipeline that ruptured back during the 2015 Refugio oil spill.

The lawsuit challenges the state waivers that the Office of the State Fire Marshall granted to Sable Offshore back in December.
 
Those waivers allow the pipeline to operate without cathodic protection against corrosion, which was the exact cause of the 2015 spill.

“We have an expert that says the waivers aren't safe. The county did a study that shows this pipeline can't be operated safely, but the fire marshal didn't consider any of that. And who knows what other information may have come forward. So what we're asking for in this lawsuit is a public process,” said Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center Linda Krop.

“This pipeline can affect major sources of water supply. It goes directly through a suburban neighborhood and built in the fire marshal's office. Didn't hear from any of those people that would be impacted by the possible restart of this pipeline,” said Staff Attorney Jeremy Frankel.

The Fire Marshal granted the waivers because Sable promised to implement robust safety measures, including 27 emergency shutoff devices, enhanced leak detection and increased inspections, among other measures.

But attorneys with the Environmental Defense Center say that these safety measures are not enough to prevent an oil spill.
 
“ The pipeline, contrary to what the Fire Marshal says, will not be as safe or safer than if it had cathodic protection, this technology that prevents corrosion,” said Frankel.

In its lawsuit, the Environmental Defense Center says the State Fire Marshal has failed to comply with both federal and state law.
  
“Those laws require a public hearing. They require environmental review. They provide, you know, a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment, because if we had had that opportunity, we think it's likely the fire marshal may not have approved the waivers,” said Krop.

Krop says the State Fire Marshal is the one agency that can authorize the corroded pipeline to operate without a system to prevent more corrosion.

We've reached out to sable and are waiting for a response.
 
They've consistently maintained they are using state-of-the-art systems to prevent a potential spill.
  
The State Fire Marshal says it cannot comment on pending litigation, but they did send us a statement today that read in part “ Sable has recently completed several tests on a section of pipeline 325a as required by the state waiver and the Office Of The State Fire Marshal return to service requirements. Additional pipeline sections will be tested in the following weeks for pipeline integrity.”
 
Both entities have 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.