ENABLE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF420201004_Operator Response to Notice_02252020.pdf#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 22, 2020 Rod J. Sailor President and Chief Executive Officer Enable Midstream Partners 499 W. Sheridan Ste 1500 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 CPF 4-2020-1004 Dear Mr. Sailor: From June 3, 2019 to September 27, 2019, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your Enable Gas Transmission Pipeline System in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kansas. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are: 1. § 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring. (a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 22. 3. If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is: Onshore: At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months Offshore: At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding15 months Enable Gas Transmission (Enable) failed to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months for onshore pipelines. After reviewing the AR-5 Dunn Unit Pipe Inspection History Reports, PHMSA found that Enable exceeded the 39-month requirement for atmospheric inspections for the BT-1 pipeline segment O-86 to the ending of the header at the cooler risers. The inspection dates were May 29, 2015 and October 10, 2018, which is 40 months, 11 days. The frequency of inspection exceeded the requirement by 1 month, 11 days. § 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring. (b) During inspections, the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to- air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water. Enable failed to adequately give particular attention to pipe in spans over water when conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections. PHMSA reviewed the Enid Unit atmospheric corrosion inspection records and found that in two locations, Enable used binoculars to perform its atmospheric corrosion inspections for the pipelines that span over water. Particular attention must be paid to the entire pipe segment spanning over water, specifically where the pipe segment is in contact with pipe supports and bridge housings. These areas may not be visible from a distance using binoculars, preventing adequate atmospheric corrosion inspections. On Line 23-24, which spans the Arkansas River Bridge, the description of work states that the pipeline was inspected via binoculars and rain holes in the bridge. On Line 25, which is under the Walnut River Bridge, the description of work states that the pipeline was inspected with binoculars. § 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling. (a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Enable failed to ensure that its right of way (ROW) conditions were acceptable for the type of patrolling used to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line ROW for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Enable has implemented the Vegetation Management Program, which is a spraying program that controls vegetation on the ROW. PHMSA observed five Enable 2#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 34. 5. unit locations where the ROW conditions appeared to be unacceptable due to the amount of vegetation on the ROW. The following locations at each unit were observed to have ROW conditions that did not provide for adequate observation of the ROW: • Ada Unit: Stringtown Railroad Crossing; • AR-2 Russellville: Tates Island ROW outside the station gate, HCA HS 1252 Walmart in Morrillton, Mooreland Compressor Station ROW outside the station gate on the suction side; • AR MO Fort Smith: Cossatot East ROW, Winslow Station ROW, HCA HS 1247 Commercial Building ROW, HCA HS 1246 Sonic, Assisted Living, Apartments ROW; • Enid: HCA on Line 4-1-4 at TS 2142 at W Chestnut Ave and the Tuscana Apartments, Line 2-H-9 at W Pine N / 2740 Rd ROW; and • AR-5 Dunn: Highway 309 ROW for Lines BT-1/BT-1-AN, Paint Rock Road, Mt. Carmel Road Crossing. § 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices. (a) Except for rupture discs, each pressure relieving device in a compressor station must be inspected and tested in accordance with § 192.739 and § 192.743, and must be operated periodically to determine that it opens at the correct set pressure. Enable failed to inspect and test its pressure relieving devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year in accordance with § 192.739, § 192.743, and Enable’s Operating and Maintenance Plan, Procedure No. 304: Inspection and Testing of Relief and Automatic Shutdown Devices Compressor Stations. During the inspection, PHMSA reviewed records for the Clarksville, Piney, and Morrison Bluff Compressor stations in the Russellville District. A review of Enable’s records showed that it did not inspect and test certain pressure relief valves in calendar year 2016. Enable stated that the calendar year 2016 inspections were conducted on December 2, 2015. § 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines. (a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Enable failed to ensure that each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency is inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. On July 22, 2019, PHMSA reviewed the Pipeline Block Valve Inspection records for Sayre and Arapaho Unit in the Wheeler Operations Area and 3#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 4found that BV 34174 had not been operated since March 6, 2018, exceeding the 15-month requirement by 16 months, 17 days. This probable violation is a repeat of a violation found in CPF No. 4-2013-1018, Item # 6. 6. § 192.805 Qualification program. (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified… Enable failed to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks in the Chandler and Spiro Unit are qualified. The covered task for performing atmospheric corrosion inspections is 417OP: Atmospheric Corrosion Monitoring. PHMSA reviewed atmospheric corrosion inspection records for the Holdenville and McAlester operating areas. A review of two individuals’ Veriforce records dated September 17, 2019 showed that neither were qualified to perform atmospheric corrosion inspections. The atmospheric corrosion inspection records reviewed by PHMSA showed the two individuals performed atmospheric corrosion inspections from March 2019 to May 2019. 7. § 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take? (a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area. An operator must base the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified to each pipeline segment. (See § 192.917) An operator must conduct, in accordance with one of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify additional measures to protect the high consequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional measures include, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off Valves or Remote-Control Valves, installing computerized monitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance programs. Enable failed to take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in high consequence areas (HCA). Enable identified two additional preventive and mitigative (P&M) measures for implementation in its HCA segments: (1) Line-of-sight markers; and (2) Additional pipeline patrols. Enable failed to implement the identified P&M measures in its HCA segments. 4#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 5At the time of the inspection for the Ada unit conducted from August 12-16, 2019, P&M measures (line-of-sight markers) for three HCA segments were not properly implemented. The three areas were as follows: (1) HS 1115, C-4 Club/Bar, Line 1-AD-10; (2) HS 1492, Powell’s Bar and Grill, Line 635-2; and (3) HS 1143, Stonewall Park, Line 636-3. PHMSA observed during the field inspection that line-of-sight markers were not in place in these three HCA segments. On October 3, 2019, Enable provided updated pictures to show that the line-of-sight pipeline markers in the Ada Unit were installed. At the time of the inspection for the Chandler and Spiro unit conducted from September 16-20, 2019, P&M measures (additional pipeline patrols) for five HCA segments had not been properly implemented. The five areas are as follows: (1) HS 1132, Eugena Field Elementary School, Line 34; (2) HS 1135, McAlester Boys and Girls Club, Line 34; (3) HS 1136, Speedline Park, Line 34; (4) HS1347, Amoco Building, Wilburton Office Complex, Line O; and (5) HS 1349, A&A Tank Truck Company, Wilburton Buildings, Line O-1-O. PHMSA reviewed 2016-2019 DOT Line Patrol records for the Chandler and Spiro Unit and the HCA/Special Permit Additional Work records which are used to document P&M measures (additional pipeline patrols) for the five HCA segments, and found that the dates were the same in 29 instances dating from 2016 to 2019. PHMSA found that the additional pipeline patrols were not being performed in addition to the pipeline patrols required by Part 192. It appeared that the same patrol was documented twice on separate reports to meet the pipeline patrols required by Part 192 and the P&M measure of additional pipeline patrols. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $147,100 as follows: 5#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 6Item number PENALTY 3 $51,100 6 $31,400 7 $64,600 Warning Items With respect to Items 1 and 4, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action. Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 2, 3, and 5 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enable Gas Transmission. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. 6#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 7In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2020-1004 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Mary L. McDaniel, P.E. Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Paul Brewer, Executive Vice President of Operations, Enable Midstream Partners, 499 W. Sheridan, Ste 1500, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings 7#

420201004_NOPV PCP PCO_01222020_text.pdf, page 8PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (Enable) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Enable with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections on pipelines that span rivers and are located underneath bridges, Enable must amend its procedure to include detailed guidance on conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections for pipelines that span over water and are located under bridges. Procedures must be sent to Mary L. McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region for review and approval. After the Director has approved the procedure as adequate, Enable must then conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections for pipelines that span over water and under bridges, and provide PHMSA those inspection records, including pictures that document the condition of the pipeline in those areas. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to right-of-way (ROW) conditions, Enable must ensure that its ROW conditions are accessible for walking patrols to observe surface conditions for leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation of the pipeline. Enable has developed and implemented its Vegetation Management Program to maintain ROW conditions. Enable must provide PHMSA with a list of jurisdictional pipelines where the Vegetation Management Program has been implemented and a list of jurisdictional pipelines where the program has not yet been implemented and the implementation dates. Enable must also provide PHMSA with a detailed plan of adjustments made to patrolling procedures in areas of high vegetation until the Vegetation Management Program has become effective in those areas. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to inspection and partial operation of transmission line valves that might be required during any emergency, Enable must conduct a complete valve inspection on BV 34174 and provide PHMSA with those inspection records. Enable must also provide PHMSA with pictures of the valve and the surrounding containment area. Items 2 and 5 of the Notice are to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final Order. Item 3 of the Notice is to be accomplished within 90 days following receipt of the Final Order. It is requested (not mandated) that Enable maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Mary L. McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 8#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 3, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: paul.brewer@enablemidstream.com Mr. Paul Brewer Executive Vice President of Operations Enable Midstream Partners, LP 499 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 1500 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Re: CPF No. 4-2020-1004 Dear Mr. Brewer: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $147,100. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated February 21, 2020. When the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Cary Watson, Vice President, Safety, Environmental and Technical Programs, Enable Midstream Partners, LP, cary.watson@enablemidstream.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________________ In the Matter of ) ) ) Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of Enable Midstream Partners, LP, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________________) ) CPF No. 4-2020-1004 FINAL ORDER From June 3, 2019, through September 27, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enable Gas Transmission, LLC’s (Enable or Respondent) gas transmission pipeline system in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kansas. Enable is one of two indirect, wholly-owned interstate pipeline subsidiaries of Enable Midstream Partners, LP.1 Enable operates an approximately 5,890-mile interstate pipeline system located in Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.2 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 22, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enable had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $147,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action. On behalf of Enable, Enable Midstream Partners, LP responded to the Notice by letter dated February 25, 2020 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken and requested a modification of the proposed compliance order. Respondent submitted payment of the total proposed penalty 1 Enable Gas Transmission website, available at https://www.enablemidstream.com/html/pages/egt.html (last accessed July 212, 2020). 2 Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, Annual Report for Calendar Year 2019 - Natural or Other Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems, on file with PHMSA.#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 3CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 2 amount by wire transfer on February 21, 2020. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, Enable did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b), which states: § 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring. (a) …. (b) During inspections, the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) by failing to give particular attention to pipe in spans over water when conducting atmospheric corrosion (AC) inspections. Specifically, the Notice alleged that according to Enable’s AC records, the company used binoculars in two locations to perform AC inspections for pipelines that span over water. The Notice alleged that certain areas, for example where the pipe segment is in contact with pipe supports and bridge housing, may not be visible from a distance using binoculars. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) by failing to give particular attention to pipe in spans over water when conducting AC inspections. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a), which states: § 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling. (a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) by failing to have a patrol program that ensured its right-of-way (ROW) conditions were acceptable to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line ROW for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enable implemented an Integrated Vegetation Management Program (IVM), yet there were five locations where the amount of vegetation appeared unacceptable for observing surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line ROW.#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 4CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 3 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) by failing to have a patrol program that ensured its ROW conditions were acceptable to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line ROW for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states: § 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines. (a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to ensure that each transmission line valve that might be required during an emergency is inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enable’s Pipeline Block Valve Inspection records demonstrated that one valve had not been operated since March 6, 2018, exceeding the 15-month requirement by 16 months. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to ensure that each transmission line valve that might be required during an emergency is inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states: § 192.805 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a)…. (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; … The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enable records dated September 17, 2019, showed that two individuals were not qualified to perform AC inspections, a covered task. The Notice alleged further that these individuals performed AC inspections from March 2019 to May 2019. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a), which states:#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 5CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 4 § 192.935 What additional preventative and mitigative measures must an operator take? (a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area. An operator must base the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified to each pipeline segment. (See §192.917) An operator must conduct, in accordance with one of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify additional measures to protect the high consequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional measures include, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off Valves or Remote Control Valves, installing computerized monitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance programs. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a) by failing to take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in high consequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enable identified, but failed to implement, two preventive and mitigative measures in its HCA segments: (1) line-of-sight markers and (2) additional pipeline patrols. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a) by failing to take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in HCAs. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the 3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 6CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 5 economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $147,100 for the violations cited above. Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $51,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a), for failing to have a patrol program that ensured its ROW conditions were acceptable to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line ROW for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Enable neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $51,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a). Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Enable neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b). Item 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a), for failing to take additional measures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in HCAs. Enable neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $64,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $147,100, which was paid in full by wire transfer on February 21, 2020. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, and 5 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.481(b), 192.705(a) and 192.745(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of the cited violations: With regard to the violation of § 192.705(a) (Item 3), the Director has indicated that Enable addressed each of the identified locations and ROWs that needed improvement. The Director noted that all locations have been mowed and that pictures of the ROWs were provided. In addition, the Director indicated that Enable continues to implement its IVM program and#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 7CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 6 provided the requested lists of jurisdictional pipelines where the IVM program has been implemented, and those where it has yet to be implemented with estimated implementation dates. The Director acknowledged that Enable opted not to amend patrolling procedures; rather, Enable decided to maintain ROW conditions in a way that allows personnel to traverse them. Lastly, the Director stated that Enable provided a mowing schedule through 2025 to ensure ROW conditions are maintained. With regard to the violation of § 192.745(a) (Item 5), the Director has indicated that Enable performed a complete valve inspection, fully operated valve BV34174, and provided PHMSA with the MAXIMO inspection records and pictures of the valve site and the surrounding containment area. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 3 and 5 are not included in this Order. With regard to the violation of § 192.481(b) (Item 2), the Notice proposed that Enable amend its procedures for conducting AC inspections and perform those inspections for pipelines that span over water and under bridges within 30 days following receipt of the Final Order. The Director indicated that Enable has revised its CC-280 Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection and Control procedure to specify the acceptable methods to be utilized for AC inspections on pipelines that span rivers and are located underneath bridges. However, Enable requested an extension of 365 days to allow enough time to evaluate its entire regulated pipeline system to identify all pipelines that span over water or are located under bridges. Enable argued that additional programs and procedures other than its Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection and Control procedure may need to be revised and/or created. Lastly, Enable reasoned that implementation of the new or revised procedures, training for those procedures, and physical inspection of such pipelines will exceed the 30-day allotment of time following receipt of the Final Order proposed in the Notice. As noted above, Enable operates an approximately 5,900-mile interstate pipeline system. The inspection covered 3,437 pipeline miles and eight navigable crossings.4 In consideration of the time it will take to implement and train personnel and to perform physical inspections across several states, I find that additional time to evaluate and inspect pipeline segments that span over water is warranted. Therefore, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(b) (Item 2), Respondent must conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections for pipelines that span over water and under bridges, and provide the Director with inspection records, including pictures that 4 PHMSA Pipeline Safety Violation Report, page 1 of 64, on file with PHMSA.#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 8CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 7 document the condition of the pipeline in those areas within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Items 1 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for: 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months for onshore pipelines. 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect and test its pressure relieving devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year in accordance with § 192.739, § 192.743, and Respondent’s Operating and Maintenance Plan, Procedure No. 304: Inspection and Testing of Relief and Automatic Shutdown Devices Compressor Stations. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.#

420201004_Final Order_08032020_text.pdf, page 9CPF 4-2020-1004 Page 8 The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. August 3, 2020 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

420201004_Closure Letter_02012021_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED February 1, 2021 Paul Brewer Executive Vice President of Operations Enable Midstream Partners, LP 499 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 1500 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 CPF 4-2020-1004 Dear Mr. Brewer: On August 3, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Enable Gas Transmission a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Mary L. McDaniel, P.E. Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Jimmy Cross, Senior Manager, DOT Compliance, Enable Midstream Partners, jimmy.cross@enablemidstream.com#