ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF320205009_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_08302021_(17-158844S).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF320205009_Operator Response to Notice_01192021.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF320205009_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12022022_(17-158844S).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF320205009_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12022022_(17-158844S)_text.pdf#

320205009_Closure Letter_03052025_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com; stacy.soine@enbridge.com; jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com March 5, 2025 Mr. Kevin Ruffatto Vice President, U.S. Operations Enbridge Energy, L.P. 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, TX 77056 RE: CPF 3-2020-5009-NOPV Dear Mr. Ruffatto: On August 9, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213, issued to Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge) a Final Order that made findings of violations, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $98,900, and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge to comply with the pipeline safety regulations in the above-referenced case. On August 30, 2021, Enbridge filed a Petition for Reconsideration, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.243. On December 21, 2021, PHMSA issued, pursuant to 49 CFR 190.243(d), its Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration granting Respondent’s Petition, in part, by withdrawing the disputed statement from the Final Order. The Final Order included a Compliance Order and a Civil Penalty assessment requirement that were not adjusted on reconsideration. Previously, a closure letter was inadvertently sent to Enbridge in this case. By letter dated December 2, 2022, Enbridge was notified that this enforcement action was still open pending completion of Item 10 of the Compliance Order. Based on PHMSA’s review of the additional documentation provided, and Enbridge’s payment of the civil penalty on August 31, 2021, it has been determined that Enbridge has complied with all terms of the 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, Gregory A. Ochs Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Stacy Soine, Advisor Regulatory Compliance (stacy.soine@enbridge.com) Jeff Cremin, Manager US Pipeline Compliance (jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com)#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com michael.koby@enbridge.com and November 19, 2020 Mr. Michael Koby Vice President US Operations Enbridge Energy, LP 5400 Westheimer Ct. Houston, Texas 77056 CPF 3-2020-5009 Dear Mr. Koby: On January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, 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 Enbridge Energy LP’s (Enbridge) Lakehead and Flanagan system assets and records in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana and New York. 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:#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 21. §195.116 Valves. (a) . . . (e) Each valve other than a check valve must be equipped with a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve (open, closed, etc.). Enbridge failed to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of the valves. Nine of Enbridge’s valves noted below were identified during PHMSA’s field inspections as not having a clear means of indicating the valve position. Enbridge’s design standard EES124, copied in relevant part below, states that the valve stem position indicator shall have a stem protector of heavy, transparent, UV-resistant plastic. The identified protectors were not transparent due smoke coloring or grease preventing clear indication of the valve stem position. 4.11.2 The Vendor shall provide a rising stem position indicator with a stem protector of heavy, transparent, UV-resistant plastic. A 3 mm (0.125 in.) vent hole shall be drilled in the transparent plastic cover on a 45° angle to prevent condensation and water ingress. Unit Valve Comments Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City 532.74-6V 536.42-6-V 576.92-6-V 607.62 638.45-6-V 576.82-6-V 6-UD-V-21 SK-6-SV-3 6-TBV-2 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. All valves listed above are located on Line 78 between the Illinois border and the Stockbridge, Michigan pump and tank station with the earliest installation date being 2014. This line section is new 36” pipe, which is larger than the old line 6B, so all the valves are 2014 or newer. 2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is 2#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 3effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. Enbridge failed to review its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once calendar year. During PHMSA’s records inspection, the inspector found that Enbridge did not review the following procedures in 2017. Specifically, Enbridge did not review Book 3 08-03-02 through 08-03-21 in calendar year 2017 and was unable to provide documentation of such review that contained was signed and dated as required by Enbridge’s procedures 3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. (b) . . . . (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs; (1) . . . . (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. Enbridge failed to conduct a post-accident review of employee activities for one pipeline accident, which resulted in a release of hazardous liquid, that occurred on February 29,2016 on the Lakehead system, that was reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1 [see §195.54]. During PHMSA’s inspection, Enbridge presented its Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) as the applicable emergency procedures for §195.402(e)(9). In replies to OPS Central Region on April 20, 2018 and December 5, 2018, Enbridge asserted that “emergency” is not defined in 49 CFR Part 195. However, § 195.402(e)(2) requires an operator to have procedures for responding to “each type emergency, including fire or explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline facility, accidental release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline facility, operational failure causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting pipeline facilities.” Section 195.402(e)(2) 3#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 4unambiguously delineates multiple types of emergencies are including, but not limited to, an “accidental release of hazardous liquid.” Therefore, Enbridge failed to conduct a post- accident review of employee activities for the one reportable pipeline accident which involved a release of hazardous liquid on Enbridge’s Lakehead system, in order to determine whether the emergency procedures were effective and corrective actions were taken where deficiencies were found. 4. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. Enbridge failed to inspect and test each overpressure safety device, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity. Specifically, the five (5) pressure safety devices listed below were not inspected and tested within the required time period as identified during PHMSA’s records inspection. Pressure Safety Valve In Service Date First Inspection Date Comments FN-203-PSV-11 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection FN-203-PSV-21 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection FN-203-PSV-31 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection Transmitter SK-207-PT-1BD 1-7-16 4-22-17 SK-208-PT-1BS 1-7-16 4-22-17 Regulatory interval of 15 month was exceeded by 15 days Regulatory interval of 15 month was exceeded by 15 days 4#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 55. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. Enbridge did not, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids (HVLs), at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, test and inspect each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it had adequate capacity from the standpoint of capacity for the service in which it was used. Specifically, PHMSA’s records inspection found that a total of 39 devices (i.e. HVL pressure relief valve full flow (PRVFF) and non-HVL PRVFF) in the Lakehead system did not have a calculated capacity review to determine them to be adequate from the standpoint of capacity for the service in which it was used from 2016 through 2017 as listed in the table below. A total of 98 capacity checks for adequacy were not performed in accordance with the regulation and Enbridge’s procedure, “Pressure Control Valve Capacity and Reliability Assessment.” The following table details how these figures were calculated. System Type Number Number of years (2016-2017) Require # of Tests or Capacity checks per year Lakehead HVL PRVFF 10 2 2 40 Total Lakehead Non-HVL PRVFF 29 1 2 58 Lakehead Total 98 6. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters. (a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way. 5#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 6Enbridge failed to conduct an effective inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, Enbridge used aerial patrol inspection methods, but at the time of the inspection, the locations noted below were found with vegetation overgrowth such that surface of the right-of-way was not visible by aerial patrol.1 The following three locations on Enbridges’ pipeline right-of-way had excess growth and tree canopy blocking aerial visibility of the surface conditions: Unit MP Description Comments Fort Atkinson (Wisconsin) 360.903 At MP 360.903 there was an issue with ROW Clearance Dense cover restricting aerial view of ground on ROW Line 5 (Michigan) Line 5 (Michigan) 1429.289 ROW needs clearing 1436.91 West side of this exposure needs ROW clearing Aerial view of ground restricted by foliage. Dense cover for 100 feet each side of this exposure. 7. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (a) . . . (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk- based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal inspection interval. Section 6 of API Standard 653 3rd Edition, December 2001 6.3.1 Routine In-Service Inspections 6.3.1.1 The external condition of the tank shall be monitored by close visual inspection from the ground on a routine basis. This inspection may be done by owner/operator personnel, and can be done by other than authorized inspectors as defined in 3.6. Personnel performing this inspection should be knowledgeable of the storage facility operations, the tank, and the characteristics of the product stored. 1 Photographs illustrating the overgrowth on Enbridge’s rights-of-way are found in Exhibit D to the Pipeline Safety Violation Report. 6#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 76.3.1.2 The interval of such inspections shall be consistent with conditions at the particular site, but shall not exceed one month. 6.3.1.3 This routine in-service inspection shall include a visual inspection of the tank’s exterior surfaces. Evidence of leaks; shell distortions; signs of settlement; corrosion; and condition of the foundation, paint coatings, insulation systems, and appurtenances should be documented for follow-up action by an authorized inspector. Enbridge violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to adequately inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std. 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval). Specifically, Enbridge’s annual inspection records documented deficiencies on three above ground breakout tanks in Superior, Wisconsin that should have been documented and addressed in the company’s monthly pursuant to Enbridge Procedure 09-02-02. Enbridge Procedure 09-02-02, dated 05-01-2014, outlines the steps that the company must take to comply with API Standard 653 and 49 C.F.R. § 195.432. Routine monthly inspections must identify the following issues on breakout tanks:  Leaks on shell, flanges and mixers  Shell distortions, settlement or heaving, active corrosion, oil or water in tank or on roof  Foundation condition, paint coatings, floating roof, insulation and appurtenances During its annual inspection, Enbridge identified issues with three breakout tanks, as described in the table below, that should have been addressed in the company’s monthly inspections but were not. Enbridge informed PHMSA that further training maybe needed to correct this matter. 7#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 8Superior Unit Inspection Item Tank 10 July 2016 Tank 1 August 2016 Tank 12 July 2016 Annual Note: Peeling paint on pontoon deck, corrosion on roof leg sleeves, ground shunts not in contact with shell, vac breaker leak, bent stair treads. Ring wall cracks and spalls, roof corrosion, bent stairs on roof, ground shunts not in contact with shell, corroded platform stair. Water pooling at clean out area on E & N sides, cavity under roof drain valve, shell paint peeling, damaged stair grating. Monthly Required API 653: Leaks Shell Distortions Settlement Corrosion Missing Missing Foundation Missing Coatings Missing Insulation Missing Missing Appurtenances Missing Missing Monthly Required 09- 02-02 Procedure: Missing Above items include roof 8. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (a) . . . (e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h) §195.401 General requirements. (a) . . . (b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the following requirements: (1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it 8#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 9must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition. Enbridge did not correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time as required by § 195.401(b). PHMSA’s records inspection identified that Enbridge did not correct identified cathodic protection deficiencies to bring structure potentials up to the level of "target potentials" as defined by the operator within a reasonable time. According to Enbridge’s procedures Book 3: Performing CP Surveys - Annual – Sub # 08-03-20, discovered deficiencies should be corrected prior to the next scheduled inspection. Deficiencies were found at the following five locations that were not corrected prior to the next inspection: Unit MilePost Description Bay City 678.6230 Target On Voltage -1.206 2015 On Reading -.769 2016 On Reading -1.18 C679 Howell Facilities CP Valve 6-SDV-1 -1.084 Bay City 1628.635 Line 5 Mainline CP -1.443 -1.406 -1.427 Bay City 1734.301 Line 5 Mainline CP -1.047 -.968 -.958 Escanaba 1571.481 LINE 5 - Mainline -1.533 -.924 CP – (Valve 1571.48-5-V) Griffith 341.69 -1.332 -1.236 -1.277 9. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what coating material may I use? (a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion. (c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces, you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion will- (1) Only be a light surface oxide; or (2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled inspection. 9#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 10Enbridge failed to provide suitable coating on its pipeline to protect against atmospheric corrosion, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.581. Enbridge did not maintain a suitable coating at the following 8 exposed pipe locations identified during PHMSA’s field inspection as shown in the field inspection photographs in Exhibit E of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report. Unit Pipeline Location Description 1 MN 1 MP1082 MN 3 MP820 MN 2 MP886.953 MN 3 MP973.7 MN 2 MP1013 Superior 1 MP 1090.22 Escanaba 5 MP 1456.48 Griffith 62 MP 66.98 10. §195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control? (a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows: 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 exceeding 15 months. (b) During inspections you 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. (c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must provide protection against the corrosion as required by §195.581. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what coating material may I use? (a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces, you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you 10#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 11demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion will- (1) Only be a light surface oxide; or (2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled inspection. inspection photographs in Exhibit F of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report. Unit Pipeline Location Description 1 MN 4 MP1065.7 MN 1 MP915.141 MN 2 MP915.141 MN 3 MP913 MN 2, 1,3 MP 914 Fort Atkinson 6 MP 82 Fort Atkinson 6 MP 98 Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $122,100 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $25,200 2 $18,900 $20,300 00 ur $37,000 $20,700 11#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 12Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge Energy, LP. 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. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2020-5009 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Gregory A. Ochs Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings CC: Mr. Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East, Superior, WI 54880 (david.stafford@enbridge.com) 12#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 13PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Enbridge with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to maintaining a means for clearly indicating the position of the valves, Enbridge must provide a means of clearly indicating the positon of the nine valves and document this effort. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to providing for a post-accident review of employee activities, Enbridge must conduct and document a post-accident review of employee activities on the pipeline accident that occurred on February 29, 2016. on the Lakehead system, that were reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1, to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. This review and documentation must include all of the elements in §195.402(e). In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to clearing rights-of-way (ROW) to allow for inspection, Enbridge must clear the three ROW areas to allow aerial patrol and document this effort, or must patrol the ROW by another method and document the effort. In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to inspection of breakout tanks, Enbridge must train its employees on procedures for properly conducting monthly breakout tank inspections. Documentation of this training must also be made. In regard to Item 9 of the Notice pertaining to suitable atmospheric coating on the pipeline, Enbridge must remediate the coating at the 8 locations identified and document the action taken. In regard to Item 10 of the Notice pertaining to maintaining coating at soil-to-air interfaces, Enbridge must remediate the coating at the 7 locations identified and document the action taken. Enbridge must complete the compliance items 1 thought 6 above within 180 days of receiving the Final Order and provide documentation to Greg Ochs, Director, Central Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested (not mandated) that Enbridge maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Greg Ochs, Director, Central Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) 13#

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf, page 14total 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. 14#

320205009_Closure Letter_12222021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: michael.koby@enbridge.com and david.stafford@enbridge.com December 22, 2021 Michael Koby Vice President, US Operations Enbridge Energy, LP 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, Texas 77056 CPF 3-2020-5009-NOPV Dear Mr. Koby: On August 9, 2021 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Enbridge Energy, LP a Final Order that made findings of violations, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $98,900, and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Energy, LP in order to comply with the pipeline safety regulationsin the above-referenced case. On August 30, 2021, Enbridge Energy, LP filed its Petition for Reconsideration. On December 21, 2021, PHMSA issued its Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration granting Respondent’s Petition, in part, by withdrawing the disputed statement from the Final Order. The Final Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment requirement. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, and your Payment of Penalty on August 31, 2021, it has been determined that Enbridge Energy, LP has complied with the terms of the 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, Gregory A. Ochs Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Mr. Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance (david.stafford@enbridge.com)#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 9, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: michael.koby@enbridge.com Michael Koby Vice President, U.S. Operations Enbridge Energy, LP 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, Texas 77056 Re: CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Dear Mr. Koby: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $98,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enbridge Energy, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central 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: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. David Stafford, Manager, U.S. Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge Energy, LP, david.stafford@enbridge.com CONFIMRATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_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 ) Enbridge Energy, LP, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CPF No. 3-2020-5009 FINAL ORDER From January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, 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 Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge or Respondent) for the Lakehead and Flanagan systems in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, and New York. Enbridge Energy, LP is a subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc., and operates over 4,000 miles of pipeline across those states. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated November 19, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enbridge had committed ten violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $122,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enbridge responded to the Notice by letter dated January 19, 2021 (Response). Enbridge contested several of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e), which states: § 195.116 Valves. Each valve installed in a pipeline system must comply with the#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 2 following: (a) . . . (e) Each valve other than a check valve must be equipped with a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve (open, closed, etc.). The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e) by failing to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of the valves. Specifically, the Notice alleged that nine of Enbridge’s valves noted below were identified by PHMSA’s field inspections as not having clear means of indicating the valve position. The identified protectors were not transparent due to smoke coloring or grease preventing clear indication of the valve stem position. Unit Valve Comments Bay City 532.74-6V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 536.42-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 576.92-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 607.62 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 638.45-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 576.82-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 6-UD-V-21 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City SK-6-SV-3 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. Bay City 6-TBV-2 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem. In its Response, Enbridge contested the allegation. First, Enbridge stated that the valve at 6-UD- V-21 is “located indoors and appears to have been inadvertently included.” Second, with regard to the remaining valves, Enbridge stated that “the position of the valve stems for each referenced valve can be seen, clearly indicating whether it is in the open or closed position” and could be “determined by observing the visible light passing through the cover on either side of the threaded valve stems.” Third, Enbridge argued the “valve protectors remain transparent” and provided photographs in support. Fourth, Enbridge stated that the standard cited above is a “design standard, not an operating and maintenance standard, which calls for the installation of transparent valve stem protectors” while design standards do not. Finally, Enbridge stated that it is “axiomatic” that discoloration will occur, that it is “acceptable,” and that it “does not prevent operator personnel from seeing the valve stem and determining the position of each valve stem.” After considering the additional information and explanations provided by Enbridge, I agree that the valve at 6-UD-V-21 did not exhibit smoky discoloration and was equipped with a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve. Therefore, this alleged instance of violation should be withdrawn. However, with regard to the remaining valves, I disagree with Respondent. The evidence shows the remaining eight valves did have discoloration that inhibited the ability to determine the valve position. Respondent’s contention that § 195.116(e) did not require valve stem protectors to remain clear after installation is not a position I find supported by the text of the regulation, which states that each valve installed in a pipeline system “must be equipped with a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve.” Accordingly, even a properly installed valve would cease to be in compliance if it no longer has means for clearly indicating the valve#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 3 position.1 While it may be “axiomatic” that some discoloration will occur, excess discoloration that prevents a clear indication of valve position does not comply with the regulation. In the Director’s written evaluation of the response material pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director noted that the photos provided by Enbridge were taken “right next to the valve stem” and that in practice the stem may be located on an elevated platform away from Enbridge personnel. As a result, the photographs fail to show that there is a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve. The Director also noted that PHMSA representatives observed Enbridge personnel removing valve stem covers during the day to observe the valve position because the smoky discoloration inhibited their view. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e) by failing to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of eight valves. The valve 6-UD-V-21 instance of violation is hereby withdrawn. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to review its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once every calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge did not review Book 3 08-03-02 through 08-03-21 in calendar year 2017 and was unable to provide documentation of such review that was signed and dated as required by Enbridge procedures. In its Response Enbridge clarified that the absence of signature and date was the result of an inadvertent deletion when the review forms were merged in Enbridge’s submission to PHMSA. Enbridge provided original dated forms with the proper signature in its Response. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enbridge did not violate § 195.402(a) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn. 1 Additional safety regulations are also applicable. See, e.g., §§ 195.420(a) (requiring operators to “maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times”) and 195.402(c)(3) (requiring operators prepare and follow a procedural manual for “operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system”).#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 4 Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. (b) . . . . (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs: (1) . . . . (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) by failing to conduct a post-accident review of employee activities for one pipeline accident, which resulted in a release of hazardous liquid. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge did not conduct a post- accident review of employee activities for the pipeline accident that occurred on the Lakehead system on February 29, 2016, reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1. 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. § 195.402(e)(9) by failing to conduct a post-accident review of employee activities for one pipeline accident, which resulted in a release of hazardous liquid. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states: § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 5 each overpressure safety device, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity. Specifically, the Notice alleged that five pressure safety devices were not inspected and tested within the required time period as identified during PHMSA’s records inspection. 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. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test each overpressure safety device listed above. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states: § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to test and inspect, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids (HVLs), at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it was adequate from the standpoint of capacity for the service in which it was used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge did not conduct a calculated capacity review for 39 devices (totaling 98 capacity checks) in the Lakehead system to determine they were adequate from the standpoint of capacity for the service in which they were used from 2016 through 2017. 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. § 195.428(a) by failing to test and inspect the pressure limiting devices in the required time period. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states: § 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters. (a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to conduct an#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 6 effective inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Specifically, the Notice alleged that three locations on Enbridge’s pipeline ROWs had excess growth and tree canopy such that the surface of the ROW was not visible to aerial patrols conducted by Enbridge. 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. § 195.412(a) by failing to conduct an effective inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline ROW. Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states: § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (a) . . . (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk- based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal inspection interval. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to adequately inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std. 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge identified issues with three breakout tanks that should have been addressed in the company’s monthly inspections but were not. 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. § 195.432(b) by failing to adequately inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std. 653. Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states: § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (a) . . . (e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h) The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 7 identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time as required by § 195.401(b).2 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge identified deficiencies at five locations and failed to bring structure potentials up to the level of “target potentials” by the following inspection. 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. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time as required by § 195.401(b). Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581, which states: § 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what coating material may I use? (a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion. (c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces, you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion will- (1) Only be a light surface oxide; or (2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled inspection. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581 by failing to provide suitable coating on its pipeline to protect against atmospheric corrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge did not maintain a suitable coating at eight exposed pipe locations. 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. § 195.581 by failing to provide suitable coating at eight exposed pipe locations. Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c), which states: § 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control? (a) . . . (c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must provide protection against the corrosion as required by §195.581.3 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) by failing to protect its pipeline against atmospheric corrosion as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.581. Specifically, the 2 Section 195.401(b) requires operators to make non-integrity management repairs “within a reasonable time” whenever an operator discovers a condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline. 3 Section 195.581 requires operators to clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of that section.#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 8 Notice alleged that Enbridge did not maintain coating at soil-air interfaces at seven locations. 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. § 195.583(c) by failing to protect its pipeline against atmospheric corrosion as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.581. 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.4 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; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA. In addition, I may consider the 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 $122,100 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e), for failing to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of the valves. As explained in detail above, Enbridge contested the violation, and based on the additional information provided, one of the nine instances has been withdrawn. Enbridge did not present any additional argument warranting further reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $24,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e). Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,900 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a). Since this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not assessed. Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test each overpressure safety device, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity. Enbridge neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a). 4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 10CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 9 Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to test and inspect, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry HVLs, at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it had adequate capacity from the standpoint of capacity for the service in which it was used. Having reviewed the record, I find the civil penalty proposed in the Notice was higher than the penalty calculated by the civil penalty worksheet. The correct penalty as calculated by the worksheet for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) was $33,500. Enbridge 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 $33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a). Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), for failing to correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time as required by § 195.401(b). Having reviewed the record, I find the civil penalty proposed in the Notice was higher than the penalty calculated by the civil penalty worksheet. The correct penalty as calculated by the worksheet for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) was $20,300. Enbridge 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 $20,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $98,900. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $98,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.116(e), 195.402(e)(9), 195.412(a), 195.432(b), 195.581, and 195.583(c), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 11CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 10 transportation of gas or hazardous liquid 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 § 195.412(a) (Item 3), the Director has indicated that Enbridge has performed a post-accident review of the pipeline accident that occurred on February 29, 2016 on the Lakehead system that was reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1, and provided PHMSA documentation of the review. With regard to the violation of § 195.412(a) (Item 6), the Director has indicated that Enbridge has cleared the ROWs to make them visible from aerial patrol. All ROWs have been cleared and Enbridge provided photographs of the ROWs. 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 6 are not included in this Order. With regard to the violation of § 195.581 (Item 9), the Notice proposed that Enbridge remediate the coating at the eight locations identified and document the action taken within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order. Enbridge requested an extension to 18 months to complete remediation of the remaining locations. Enbridge notes that certain of the locations are scheduled to be replaced as part of line replacement efforts. Enbridge also notes that in-line inspection data showed that at no time did the violations present a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. In consideration of this evidence, I find that additional time is warranted to remediate the coating at the eight locations and document the action taken. With regard to the violation of § 195.583(c) (Item 10), the Notice proposed that Enbridge must remediate the coating at the seven locations identified within 180 days of the Final Order. Enbridge requested an extension to 18 months to complete remediation of the remaining locations. Enbridge notes that certain of the locations are scheduled to be replaced as part of line replacement efforts. Enbridge also notes that in-line inspection data showed that at no time did the violations present a threat to the integrity of the pipeline. In consideration of this evidence, I find that additional time is warranted to remediate the coating at the seven locations and document the action taken. 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 § 195.116 (Item 1), Respondent must provide a means of clearly indicating the position of the eight valves and document this effort. Documentation of its completion of this item must be provided to the Director with 180 days of receipt of the Final Order. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(a) (Item 7), Respondent must train its#

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 12CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 11 employees on procedures for properly conducting monthly breakout tank inspections. Documentation of this training must be provided to the Director within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order. 3. With respect to the violation of § 195.581 (Item 9), Respondent must remediate the coating at the eight locations identified and submit documentation to the Director showing the action taken within eighteen (18) months of receipt of the Final Order. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.583(c) (Item 10), Respondent must remediate the coating at the seven locations identified and submit documentation to the Director showing the action taken within eighteen (18) months 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. PHMSA requests 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. 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 filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. August 9, 2021 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 21, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO:michael.koby@enbridge.com Mr. Michael Koby Vice President, U.S. Operations Enbridge Energy, LP 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, Texas 77056 Re: CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Dear Mr. Koby: Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition in part, but does not withdraw any findings of violation. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the Compliance Order are completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this decision 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: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. David Stafford, Manager, U.S. Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge Energy, LLC, david.stafford@enbridge.com Mr. Darren Hunter, Counsel for Respondent, Hunter Masalski, LLC, darren@huntermasalski.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_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 ) Enbridge Energy, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2020-5009 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION From January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, 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 Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge or Respondent) for its Lakehead and Flanagan systems. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated November 19, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enbridge had committed ten violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $122,100 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Enbridge responded to the Notice by letter dated January 19, 2021, contesting several of the allegations, offering additional information in response to the Notice, requesting the civil penalty be reduced, and requesting the compliance order be amended (Response). Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one. Subsequently, on March 19, 2021, the Director, Central Region, filed a Region Recommendation responding to Respondent’s Response and recommending one alleged violation be withdrawn, the civil penalty be reduced, and the compliance order items be amended (Region Recommendation). On August 9, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued a final order finding that Respondent had committed nine violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Final Order). Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.223, the Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $98,900 and ordered Respondent to take certain actions to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243 (Petition). In its Petition, Respondent did not seek reconsideration of any findings or assessed civil penalties. Rather, Respondent requests a statement in the Final Order regarding the violation in Item 1 be withdrawn.#

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 2 Standard of Review Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.1 A respondent may ask for correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered.2 The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. Analysis Item 1 of the Final Order found that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.116(e) by failing to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of eight valves on its Bay City unit. Specifically, I found the excess discoloration on the eight valve protectors inhibited the ability of personnel to determine the valves’ position. In making this finding, I evaluated all of the evidence of record, including the evidence and statements provided in the Respondent’s Response and the Region Recommendation. Respondent argued in its Petition that the following statement in the Final Order represents a factual error: “The Director also noted that PHMSA representatives observed Enbridge personnel remove the valve stem covers during the day to observe the valve position because the smoky discoloration inhibited their view.”3 Respondent notes that this fact was first presented in the Region Recommendation, so the statement could not be disputed by the Respondent in its Response. Respondent asserts that Enbridge personnel did not remove the valve stem covers to observe the valve position as stated in the Region Recommendation and Final Order, but instead that Enbridge personnel removed the covers as “part of normal operations” and the removals were “not because of any discoloration.”4 Respondent also stated the removal of the valve stem covers was consistent with Enbridge’s O&M Manual, which sets forth its valve and actuator preventative maintenance procedures.5 After reviewing all of the evidence of record, I find it is appropriate to withdraw the statement at issue from the Final Order. While it is not disputed that Enbridge personnel removed the valve covers during the inspection, Respondent asserts it is factually an error to state that the purpose of removing the covers was specifically to observe the position of the valve. There is no evidence presented in the Violation Report or Region Recommendation that supports the statement the covers were removed with the specific purpose of determining the valve position. 1 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d). 2 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 5-2009-00118, 2013 WL 5883403, at *3 (August 30, 2013). 3 Final Order, at 3. 4 Petition, at 2. 5 Id.#

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2020-5009 Page 3 Because the allegation was introduced in the Region Recommendation and there is no explanation or evidence supporting its veracity in the record, I find it is appropriate to grant Respondent’s Petition and to withdraw the disputed statement from the Final Order. The statement is hereby withdrawn. While withdrawal of the statement is warranted, it is not necessary to issue an Amended Final Order as Respondent has further requested because withdrawal of the sentence does not impact the finding of violation. The Final Order specified other reasons supporting the finding of violation of § 195.116, namely that the valve covers had such significant discoloration that the ability of the personnel to determine the valve position was inhibited. Since the withdrawal of the disputed statement has no impact on any finding of violation, associated compliance item or the civil penalty, it is not necessary to issue an Amended Final Order. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, I am granting the Petition in part and withdrawing the disputed statement. No other amendments to the Final Order are made by this Decision, and the civil penalty of $98,900 for the violations of is now due. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $98,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court. This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding. December 21, 2021 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#