FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
January 22, 2013
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
U.S. House of Representatives
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Snohomish Public Utility District. I appreciate
your interest in this matter and am pleased to provide'the enclosed letter on this issue from the
Chief of the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
If you have any additional questions or need any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact me. /7IY,~
V1UliUS Genachowski
Enclosure
445 12TH 5TREET5.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20554 • 202-418-1000
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
January 22, 2013
In Reply Refer To:
1201020
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
United States House of Representatives
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congresswoman Rodgers:
Thank you for your letter dated August 2,2012 concerning comments the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding Snohomish County
Public Utility District No. I' s (District) proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project (Project).l
In its comments, the Bureau recommended that FERC consider requiring a minimum 500
meters separation between a trans-Pacific submarine cable (PC-I) operated by FCC licensee PC
Landing Corporation, and the District's proposed hydrokinetic project. The Bureau expressed its
concern that the roughly 100 meters separation between the cable and the Project offered by the
District might not sufficiently account for adverse incidents that could occur, both during
construction of the Project and during routine maintenance of the project and the submarine
cable, and such events could pose an unacceptable risk to communications reliability.
The Bureau based its initial recommendation on the International Cable Protection
Committee (ICPC) Recommendation No. 13, "Proximity of Wind Farm Developments &
Submarine Cable.,,2 In its comments, the Bureau noted that, while this recommendation treated
the interaction of at-grade, off-shore wind farms with submarine cables, "many of the same
principles [of appropriate distance separation] apply here.,,3 In the absence of more definitive
guidance, the Bureau accepted this more cautious approach.
Subsequently, on October.4, 2012, the Bureau filed a response4 to a request for
clarification from FERC.5 For your convenience, I am including a copy of this response. In its
I See Initial Comments of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications
Commission (PSHSB Comments) (filed May 23, 2012).
2 See ICPC Recommendation No 13, "Proximity of Wind Farm Developments & Submarine Cable" (available at
http://www.advancepipeliner.comlResourceslCablelRecommendation_1 3_Iss_OIA.pdf) (reI. Jan. 26, 2007) (updated
Sept. 27, 2010) (ICPC Recommendation No. 13).
3 See PSHSB Comments at4 n. 14. Furiher, while off-shore wind farms have proliferated globally to such a degree
that the ICPC felt compelled to provide guidance, hydrokinetic power generation is not yet as wide-spread, and
1CPC has not yet made recommendations on the appropriate separation distance between existing cables and
proposed projects that will sit on the ocean bed. The Bureau believed that out of an abundance of caution, and in
order to promote and maintain communications reliability, it should at least make decision-makers at FERC aware
of the ICPC guidance.
4 See Response of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission
(PSHSB Response) (filed October, 2012)
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Page 2
response, the Bureau more thoroughly explained its reasoning regarding its initial
recommendation. Moreover, the Bureau reviewed additional information provided by the
District and acknowledged that, based on this additional information, installation and removal of
the Project will occur under strict conditions, and that the location of the Project 170 and 249
meters away from PC-l should not impact the ability to repair PC- J. Accordingly, the Bureau
clarified that based on the information it had seen at that time, it does not oppose licensing of the
Project at the distance of 170 and 249 meters now proposed by the District so long as FERC
determines that the Project does not present material risk to PC-I, and FERC is able to ensure
(via imposition of license conditions, if appropriate), that the District, its agents, contractors and
successors all adhere to the safety and distance separation representations that the District made
in its additional filings.
I trust that this information addresses your concerns. I appreciate your interest in this
matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
7:;~\2JdS. Tore',k,
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
5 See Letter from Vince Yearick, Acting Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing, Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to David L. Furth, Acting Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (Jul. 16,2012) at 2.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
October 4, 2012
Vince Yearick
Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
RE: Project No. 12690-005, Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project
Snohomish County, Washington, Public Utility District No. I
Dear Mr. Yearick:
This responds to your July 16,2012, letter, in which you ask the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
clarify certain points raised in the comments the Bureau filed on May 23,2012, regarding
Snohomish County (Washington) Public Utility District No. I 's (District) proposed Admiralty
Inlet Pilot Tidal Project (Project).' In its comments, the Bureau recommended that the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consider requiring a minimum 500 meters separation
distance between a trans-Pacific submarine cable (PC-I) operated by FCC licensee PC Landing
Corporation, and the District's proposed hydrokinetic project. The Bureau expressed its concern
that the roughly 100 meters separation distance between the cable and the Project offered by the
District might not sufficiently account for adverse incidents that could occur both during
construction of the Project, and during routine maintenance of the project and the submarine
cable.
We understand your letter to seek clarification on two issues: how the Bureau arrived at
500 meters as the appropriate separation distance between the two underwater items (i.e., the
existing cable and proposed hydrokinetic project), and why the Bureau believed a separation of
more than 120 meters was necessary?
As a preliminary matter, we note that as a result of the Bureau's filing, the District
considered and addressed the issue of separation distance in a substantive manner, and has
determined that it can relocate the project to 170 and 249 meters away from PC-I. 3
I See Initial Comments of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications
Commission (PSHSB Comments) (filed May 23, 2012).
I See Letter from Vince Yearick, Acting Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing, Office ofEnergy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to David L. Furth, Acting Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (Jul. 16,2012) at 2.
3 See Response of Public Utility District No. I of Snohomish County, Washington to PC Landing Corp's Additional
Information Request Response (filed Aug. 28, 2012) ("Snohomish County PUD Response"). The two figures (179
and 249 meters) represent the two points at which the projec~ including its two turbines, will sit on the seabed. See
PSHSB Comments at 2 n.3, "The turbines are closed-shroud, open-centered devices with no exposed blade tips,
Regarding how the Bureau arrived at the 500 meters separation distance, we refer
to International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) Recommendation No. 13, "Proximity of
Wind Farm Developments & Submarine Cable,,,4 a copy of which is enclosed. In its comments,
the Bureau noted that while this recommendation treated the interaction of at-grade, off-shore
wind farms with submarine cables, "many of the same principles [of appropriate distance
separation] apply here."s ICPC notes that as between a proposed power generator (without
distinguishing between wind farms and other types of generators) and an existing cable, there
ought to be 200 meters separation for "run-on" (the distance between the submarine cable and
the point at which the grapnel6 hits the ocean floor).' Further, the recommendation indicates that
when a cable is at 20 meters water depth, there should be an additional 150 meters distance to
account for grapnels (for a total of350 meters separation), and when the cable is at 40 meters
depth, the starting recommendation of 200 meters for run-on should be increased by an
additional 250 meters (for a total of450 meters separation).8 The Bureau calculated that when,
as here, the cable lays at roughly 55 meters water depth, an additional distance of 300 meters
should be added to the starting recommendation of a 200 meters separation. Thus, by choosing
300 meters to account for grapnel, and adding the 200 meters starting recommendation, the
Bureau arrived at the 500 meters figure.9 In sum, the Bureau believed 500 meters to be an
appropriate separation distance between the proposed project and the existing submarine cable
because this figure was based on ICPC guidance for an analogous set of circumstances (i.e.,
separation recommendations for submarine cable and power generators generally). In the
absence of more definitive guidance, the Bureau accepted this more cautious approach.
installed without anchors or pilings; the two turbines will sit on the seabed and remain stationary because of their
weight."
4 See ICPC Recommendation No 13, "Proximity of Wind Fann Developments & Submarine Cable" (available at
hnp:/Iwww.advancepipeliner.com/Resources/CablelRecommendation_13_1ss_o1A.pdf) (rei. Jan. 26, 2007) (updated
Sept 27,2010) (ICPC Recommendation No. 13).
'See PSHSB Comments at 4 n.14. Further, while off-shore wind farms have proliferated globally to such a degree
that the ICPC felt compelled to provide guidance, hydrokinetic power generation is not yet as wide-spread, and
ICPC has not yet made recommendations on the appropriate separation distance between existing cables and
proposed projects that will sit on the ocean bed. The Bureau believed that out of an abundance of caution, and in
order to promote and maintain communications reliability, it should at least make decision-makers at FERC aware
of the ICPC guidance.
6 A grapnel is the multi-pronged anchor used to lift submerged cables for repair.
7 See ICPC Recommendation No. 13 at pp. 5, 6.
'[d.
• The Bureau did not recommend further separation distance to account for the length of the cable repair ship, or a
500 meter "safety zone" as provided in ICPC Recommendation No. 13. See generally, PSHSB Comments at4 n.16.
While certain aspects ofICPC Recommendation No. 13 's separation-distance guidance are applicable to both
surface level and seabed power generation projects (e.g., run-on and grapnels), the Bureau accepted that interaction
of an off-shore wind farm at surface level and a cable repair ship may require additional separation for ship
maneuverability not applicable here.
2
Having said that, the Bureau acknowledges that the District's additional filings (i. e., the
material filed by the District in response to the Bureau's comments) present infonnation relevant
and responsive to our previously-filed comment and concern, specifically, that installation and
removal of the Project will occur under strict conditions, and that the location of the Project 170
and 249 meters away from PC-I should not impact the ability to repair PC_l. 1O 10 light of this
new infonnation, the Bureau clarifies that it does not oppose licensing of the Project at the
distance of 170 and 249 meters now proposed by the District, which is less than 500 meters
separation, so long as FERC determines that the Project does not present material risk to PC-I,
and FERC is able to ensure through its own licensing process (via imposition ofconditions if
appropriate), that the District and its agents, contractors and successors adhere to the safety and
separation distance representations it has made in its additional filings. I I The Bureau reminds all
parties that, whatever separation distance FERC ultimately detennines, PC-l is a vital trans­
Pacific submarine cable, upon which the American public and businesses and financial
institutions depend.
If you have additional questions, please contact Michael Connelly, Attorney Advisor,
Public Safety and Homeland Security, at (202) 418-0132 or MichaeJ.connelly@fcc.gov.
Sincerely yours,
/)CVJI~ti~
David Turetsky
Chief
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
Enc!.
10 See Snohomish County PUD Response at 2, 3-4, 7-13, 25·30.
II See generally, e.g., Snohomish County PUD Response.
3
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A Issue Date: 26 January 2007
ICPC Recommendation
Recommendation No. 13
Proximity of Wind Farm Developments &
Submarine Cables
Note: Issue status suffix 'A' relates to minor format changes, not content.
Page 1018
Registered In England No 5344353 Registered Office: 12 Fratton Road, PORTSMOUTH, POl S8X U,K.
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A
Contact for Enquiries and Proposed Changes
Issue Dale: 26 January 2007
If you have any questions regarding this document or suggestions for improving it, please
contact:
International Cable Protection Committee Ltd
PO Box 150
Lymington
S0416WA
United Kingdom
Secretary:
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:
ICPC Web-site:
Mr, Graham Marie
+ 44 1590 681 673
+44 870 432 7761
secretary@lscpc.org
www.lscpc.org
DISCLAIMER
An International Cable Protection Committee Ltd ("ICPC'~Recommendation
("Recommendation '? implies a consensus ofthose substantially concerned with its scope and
provisions. A Recommendation is intended as a guide to aid cable owners and other seabed
users in promoting the highest goals ofreliability and safety in the submarine cable environment.
The existence ofa Recommendation does not in any respect preclude anyone, whether he has
approved the Recommendation or not, from laying or repairing undersea cables or employing
procedures to these ends which may be required by the ordinary practice ofseamanship or by the
special circumstances ofeach case, but which may not be conforming to the Recommendation.
The ICPC does not develop standards and will in no circumstances give an interpretation ofa
Recommendation in the name ofthe ICPC. The ICPC and its members do not accept any
liability for any errors in the Recommendation orfor any consequences resultingfrom its use as
a planning guide. Nothing in this Recommendation should be viewed as relieving anyone from
the rights and obligations ofseabed users under international law, including but not limited to
the United Nations Convention ofthe Law ofthe Sea ("UNCLOS'~.
NB: ICPC Recommendations are subject to periodic review and users are cautioned to obtain
the latest issues. This Recommendation may be revised or withdrawn at any time without
further notice to the recipient.
Page 2 of 8
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Issue Date: 26 January 2007
Disclaimer 2
Table Of Contents 3
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. CONSULTATION 4
3. REQUIREMENTS OF EACH INDUSTRy 4
3.1. Wind Farm Industry 4
3.2. Submarine Cable Industry 4
4. SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4
4.1. General 4
4.2. Turbine Structures 5
4.3. Power Cable Links 7
5. PRECAUTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION 7
5.1. Anchor Patterns 7
5.2. Support Vessels 7
6. NOTIFICATIONS 7
6.1. General 7
6.2. Contact List 7
6.3. Government Owned Submarine Cables 8
6.4. Operational Notifications 8
7. DEFINITIONS 8
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8
Page 3 of 8
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A
1. INTRODUCTION
Issue Date: 26 January 2007
This document recommends the separation principles to be used when undertaking the
planning of new wind farm developments and/or submarine cables where the planned plant
approaches close to existing plant.
The information contained in this recommendation is based on established submarine cable
repair practices.
NB: Because the majority ofwindfarms are located in relatively shallow water the separation
distances recommended in this document are designed to deal water depths up to 40 metres.
This Recommendation will be updated to cover deeper waters when there is evidence ofa
requirement for it.
2. CONSULTATION
Owners of wind farms and those planning construction are strongly advised to contact the
submarine cable owners during the initial planning stage for information on existing and
planned submarine cables.
If there is any doubt about who the submarine cable owners may be, the ICPC can be
requested for asistance via secretary@iscpc.org
3. REQUIREMENTS OF EACH INDUSTRY
3. I. Wind Farm Industry
The wind farm operator has two prime considerations: the security of the turbines from
surface navigation and the security of the wind farm's submarine power cables from other
seabed users.
A safety zone of up to 500m around an offshore structure may be established by a coastal
State to ensure the safety of the structure and navigation, as described in Article 60 of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and the Geneva Convention on
the Continental Shelf(1958).
3.2. Submarine Cable Industry
The cable industry also has two prime considerations: the security of existing submarine
cables during the wind farm construction phase and access for submarine cable repair
vessels afterwards.
4. SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. General
If wind fanns are to have a 500 metre safety zone around the turbines then it is
unreasonable to position them where it would force any third party who has to maintain
their existing plant to enter that safety zone in order to carry out their legitimate business.
The recommended separation between submarine cables and a wind farm reflects the
distances required for a cableship to carry out a cable repair. The deeper the water the
longer the "Iayback" required to tow a set of grapnels to recover the cable.
Page4of8
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A Issue Date: 26 January 2007
4.2. Turbine Structures
It is recommended that the position of turbine structures in relation to existing submarine
cables should allow access for a ship to repair an existing submarine cable in the event ofa
fault.
The same principles are recommended for the separation of new submarine cables from
existing wind farm structures.
The manoeuvrability and station-keeping (dynamic positioning) properties of a ship should
all be taken into account when planning a repair or maintenance operation in the vicinity of
a wind farm.
For safety reasons it is recommended that a cable repair vessel should not operate within
the 500m safety zone of a turbine structure. The total separation required will be dictated
by the depth of water as illustrated in the two examples below:
20m Water Depth I
~(
•.
•
•.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
..
.
.
•.
.
.
•
•.
.
•
..
l.·'"Grapnels
,'/ I Run on I
•
•
•
I Turbine •..•
..
•.
. (
. .
./ ~OOm ./ ~50m ..
• ••
. ".~.. .:,.:
" " ~,'
" ,t' I '
. "
" I •
. "
• ••
,./ I Safety Zone I ,/ ,/
. .
• •. .
• •. .
" ,','
I ,/1' Ship length • ~/
,,',t' ,'/t' I
•
..
•.
.
20m water depth, recommended separation:
500m Safety Zone
150m Ship's Length
150m Grappling rig
200m Run on
1,OOOm Total
Page 5 018
ICPC Racommandatlon No.13,lssua: 1A Issua Data: 26 Jenuary 2007
40m Water Depth IITurbine .,,.:,
•, ,
// I SOOm I .../~/ I 250m I.-
, ",:~' ...~ ......
,/ .../ /~... :/
, ,,'
... I I: : .', Safety Zone,' " ,
" /,,'
, . '
, . ', , .
, , .
, ,'
,
: ...~ , Ship length 1,/ ,./
,/ ,./ I Grapnel. 1,/
, '---
/,' ,// I Run on I
, ,
•
40m water depth, recommended separation:
500m Safety Zone
150m Ship's Length
250m Grappling rig
200m Run on
1,100m Total
Precise separation distances should be agreed and documented between the parties during
the planning process. It is also recommended that wind farm developers consult the
following ICPC Recommendation:
No.7: Procedure To Be Followed Whilst Offshore Civil Engineering Work Is Undertaken
In The Vicinity OfActive Submarine Cable Systems
This recommendation is available via the ICPC web site www.iscoc.org
Page 6 of8
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A
4.3. Power Cable Links
Issue Date: 26 January 2007
When planning the route of power cable links it is recommended that wind farm
developers consult the following ICPC Recommendations:
No.2: Recommended ROl/ting and Reporting Criteria for Cables in Proximity to Others.
No.3: Criteria to be applied to Proposed Crossings Between Submarine
Telecommunications Cables and Pipelines/Power Cables.
These recommendations are available via the ICPC web site www.iscpc.org
5. PRECAUTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION
5.1. Anchor Patterns
If an anchored vessel. platform or barge is used during the construction ofa turbine (i.e.
coring. piling or installing the tower) the closest anchor in the mooring pattern should be
separated from existing submarine cables by:
a) a minimum 200 metres if the anchor wire does not cross the cable.
b) a minimum of 400 metres if if the anchor wire crosses the cable.
Anchor wires that cross the cable should maintain 20 metres vertical distance from the
cable.
5.2. Support Vessels
All project procedures should include detailed charts with all existing submarine cables
clearly identified.
All support vessels must be made aware of the positions of the submarine cables and
instructed not to anchor within the safety zone.
6. NOTIFICATIONS
6.1. General
Where wind farm construction will result in their associated power cables running in close
parallel to or crossing existing submarine cables. advance notification shall be given to the
responsible Maintenance Authority.
6.2. Contact List
The project manager responsible for construction of a wind farm shall establish a list
identifying the maintenance contacts for every operational submarine cable system in the
general area of the planned wind farm.
This list will be used to facilitate the required notifications and for establishing the location
of existing submarine cables for use during the planning of the turbine sites and their
associated submarine cable links.
Page 7 018
ICPC Recommendation No.13, Issue: 1A
6.3. Government Owned Submarine Cables
Issue Dete: 26 January 2007
The organisation that has responsibility for planning the wind farm construction shall make
all reasonable efforts to ensure that the planned wind farm does not conflict with
submarine installations that exist for reasons of national security.
If there is any doubt about who to contact, the ICPC can be requested for asistance via
secretary@iscpc.org
6.4. Operational Notifications
The wind farm owner should ensure that it is a requirement of the project manager to
inform all relevant parties of the intention to commence construction operations at least 30
days prior to commencement.
7. DEFINITIONS
The following words, acronyms and abbreviations are referred to in this document.
Term
Maintenance Authority
Definition
The organisation responsible for the operation and
maintenance of a particular submarine cable system
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Directors oflCPC Ltd wish to place on record their appreciation of
the United Kingdom Cable Protection Committee (UKCPC) for allowing one of their
Recommendations to be used as the basis for this International version.
Page 8 of 8