This week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a second lawsuit against the federal agency charged with ensuring that pipeline safety standards are adhered to, charging that the agency in question had illegally waived federal pipeline safety rules mandating that Sable Offshore meet certain corrosion control thresholds for pipeline repair and remediation.
On June 25, the agency in question — the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) — issued Sable a special permit to pump oil through pipelines that, under a prior owner, were so beset by corrosion that they sprang a major leak in May 2015, befouling Refugio Beach and much of the coast. In that June special permit, PHMSA waived requirements that a longstanding federal corrosion repair standard be met. The agency now says that standard is no longer warranted.
Last week, PHMSA also submitted language into the federal register to expunge the rule altogether — not just for Sable but any pipeline operator — arguing that new technologies and safety requirements have rendered the regulation in question excessive and unnecessary.
In a written statement, Bonta begged to differ.
“No matter how many times the Trump administration attempts to help Sable evade state regulation, my office will see them in court at every illegal turn,” Bonta vowed.
This marks the second lawsuit Bonta has filed against PHMSA over Sable Offshore this year. At issue in this week’s lawsuit are the “tool tolerance” standards that require repairs of “longitudinal seam welds” within 180 days of discovery. In plain English, the integrity of longitudinal seam welds is a very big deal when it comes to pipeline corrosion. “Tool tolerance” is a belts-and-suspenders term of art indicating that if an inline inspection device reveals pipeline corrosion readings of 40 percent, the only safe and prudent thing to do is assume it’s 50 percent corroded and, according to federal rules, to require repair within 180 days.
In 2020, the state Fire Marshal had been assigned exclusive authority — under a court-settlement — to determine when Sable pipelines was safe to be restarted. When the Fire Marshal insisted on this tool tolerance provision last October, Sable charged the rules had been changed as part of a political attack on Sable. Bonta’s pleading includes a footnote that acknowledges the “tool tolerance” requirement language had not been clearly stated by the Fire Marshal’s office. But the state Fire Marshal, then as now, insisted that the tool tolerance language was non-negotiable.
“Our pipeline safety requirements are rigorous,” wrote Fire Marshal Chief Daniel Berlant, “grounded in engineering and risk reduction and designed to safeguard communities and the environment.”
Sable responded when the requirement was first insisted upon last October by throwing itself on the mercy of PHMSA. The federal oversight agency — which had signed legal documents in 2020 assigning all jurisdictional oversight of Sable’s pipeline to the Fire Marshal — was happy to oblige. Bonta’s first lawsuit — filed in January — alleged PHMSA had illegally usurped the Fire Marshal’s authority over Sable’s pipelines. That case remains as yet unresolved.
