SANTA BARBARA, Calif.— The Office of the State Fire Marshal faces legal action over its decision last December to grant operational waivers to Texas-based Sable Offshore, enabling the oil firm to resume oil production off the Gaviota Coast without certain anti-corrosion protections. The issue stems from the controversial restart of a pipeline that was central to the massive 2015 Refugio oil spill, prompting a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC).
In December, waivers issued by the fire marshal allowed Sable Offshore to operate the pipeline without cathodic protection, a critical safety feature designed to prevent corrosion, which was identified as the direct cause of the 2015 spill that had severe environmental impacts. According to Linda Krop, Chief Counsel of the EDC, these waivers were granted without sufficient public process and overlooked significant safety concerns highlighted by experts and local studies.
The lawsuit underscores a broader concern regarding the risks associated with the pipeline, which traverses residential areas and important water sources. Jeremy Frankel, a staff attorney with EDC, voiced worries that the potential pipeline restart poses to these vulnerable zones were not adequately addressed by the fire marshal’s office during their decision-making process.
In response to safety concerns, Sable Offshore has pledged to implement reinforced safety measures including 27 emergency shutdown devices, improved leak detection systems, and augmented inspections. However, EDC attorneys argue that these measures fall short of providing a level of safety comparable to that afforded by cathodic protection.
The legal challenge accentuates the EDC’s stance that the State Fire Marshal has not adhered to necessary federal and state legal requirements such as conducting a public hearing and performing an environmental review. These steps, they argue, would facilitate meaningful public engagement and potentially could lead to different regulatory outcomes.
Krop noted that the State Fire Marshal is the only authority capable of authorizing the pipeline’s operation without the anti-corrosion system, a critical factor in the current legal proceedings.
Although Sable Offshore maintains that its safety systems are state-of-the-art, and the State Fire Marshal’s office indicated that Sable has commenced testing on sections of the pipeline as mandated by state requirements, the concerns of local communities and environmental advocates continue to mount.
Both the State Fire Marshal and Sable Offshore have been given 30 days to formally respond to the EDC’s lawsuit. This case underscores ongoing tensions between environmental safety considerations and operational prerogatives in oil production activities along California’s scenic coastlines.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The individuals, facts, circumstances, and narrative described may not be accurate. Any concerns or requests for article removal, retraction, or correction can be addressed by emailing [email protected].