esca guideline no

UNCONTROLLEDCOPYWHENPRINTED(Pleasecheckwebsiteforcurrentversion:escaeu.org

ESCAGuidelineNo.6

TheProximityofOffshoreRenewableEnergyInstallations&SubmarineCableInfrastructureinUKWaters

IN CONFIDENCE

Guideline No.6 – The Proximity of Offshore Renewables Energy installations & Submarine Cable Infrastructure in UK Waters

Issued&OwnedBy:ExecutiveCommitteeIssueNo:5Date:10thMarch2016

Page2of43

©EuropeanSubseaCablesAssociation2016

DocumentHistory

AnypartywishingtoproposeachangetothisdocumentshouldaddresstheproposedchangetotheChairoftheRenewablesandPowerCables(RPSG)SubgroupofTheEUROPEANSUBSEACABLESASSOCIATION(ESCA).TheRSGwillthenreviewtheproposedchangeandconsiderre-conveningtheTechnicalWorkingGroup("TWG")todiscusstheproposal.OncetheRSG(andTWG,ifappropriate)aresatisfied,theirfindingsandthereviseddocumentwillbepresentedto theESCAPlenaryandother respectivebodies forapproval.Onlywhenallpartieshaveapprovedthechangeswillthedocumentbere-issued.

Allchangestothisdocumentwillberecordedinthetrackingtablebelow.

IssueNo. Name Comments Date1 RSG InitialIssue Oct20032 RSG Revisiontoformat Sept20063 RSG Interimrevision–textandadded

diagramstoaccountforMultipleturbinearrays

Sept2010

4 RSG Majorrevisionandre-writewithcross-sectorinputviaaTWG

Aug2012

5 Secretary RebrandingtoESCA Mar2016

Thisdocumentistheresultofasuccessfulcollaborativeexerciseinvolvingawiderangeofindustry and stakeholder representatives. It is theproductof abestpractice approach tominimisingtheprospectoffuturedisputeswhilstmaximisingseabeddevelopmentthroughthe adoption of the principle of sharing the seabed in a manner that is both safe andsustainable.

Theauthorswould liketothankDECC,BIS/DCMS,MMO,MarineScotlandandOFGEMfortheirsupportintheprocessleadingtothegenerationofthisdocument.

Disclaimer

TheinformationcontainedinthisdocumenthasbeencompiledbytheRenewablesSub-Group("RSG")ofESCA,thisbeingthesuccessororganisationtoSUBSEACABLESUK(SCUK),whichsucceededtheUnitedKingdomCableProtectionCommittee("UKCPC").

This document is based upon the combined experience and knowledge of the submarinetelecommunication cable industry, theoffshore renewable energy industryandTheCrownEstate. It is published in good faith with the aims of promoting the highest standards ofconstruction, operability, reliability, maintainability and safety in the subsea cableenvironment.

Whilstwereasonablybelievetheinformationcontainedhereintobevalid,it isuptothosewhomayseektorelyonsuchinformation,tosatisfythemselvesastoitsaccuracy.ESCAandalltheothernamedassociationsandentitiesresponsiblefortheinformationcontainedinthisdocumentanditscompilationmakenowarrantiesastoitsaccuracyandcanacceptnoliability

IN CONFIDENCE



Page3of43


(direct or indirect) for any errors in the information or for any losses or other adverseconsequencesarisingfromitsadoption.

It is the intentionof this document togiveguidanceand to facilitatediscussionsbetweeneffectedparties,butitisnotintendedtoreplacesuchdiscussions,norisitintendedtorequireanyaffectedpartytobehaveinacertainwayorremovetherightofanysuchpartytotakeitsowncommercialdecisionsinrelationtoanyoftheissuesraisedinthisdocument.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page4of43


TableofContents1 DEFINITIONS&ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................5

2 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................6

3 SCOPEOFTHEGUIDELINE................................................................................7

4 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................8

5 KEYFACTORSDETERMININGPROXIMITYLIMITS............................................10

6 STAKEHOLDERCONSULTATION......................................................................11

7 GUIDANCEFORINDICATIVESEPARATIONDISTANCES....................................12

8 PROCESSFORDETERMININGSITESPECIFICPROXIMITYLIMITS......................15

9 PROXIMITYAGREEMENT...............................................................................19

10 MULTIPLECABLECROSSINGSINCLOSEPROXIMITY........................................22

11 DISPUTERESOLUTIONPROCESS.....................................................................23

12 RECOMMENDEDCONSIDERATIONS,GUIDELINESANDREFERENCES..............25

13 ANNEXA-KEYFACTORSDETERMININGPROXIMITYLIMITS...........................25

14 ANNEXBSTAKEHOLDERCONSULTATION.......................................................33

15 ANNEXC–CHECKLISTFORISSUESTOBECONSIDEREDINASITESPECIFICRISKASSESSMENT...................................................................................................................38

IN CONFIDENCE



Page5of43


1 DEFINITIONS&ABBREVIATIONSALARP-AsLowAsReasonablyPracticable

BIS–DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills

DCMS–DepartmentforCulture,MediaandSport

COLREGS–ConventiononInternationalRegulationsforPreventingCollisionsatSea,London20 October 1972, (as enacted in the UK by TheMerchant Shipping (Distress Signals andPreventionofCollisions)Regulations1996

DECC–DepartmentforEnergyandClimateChange

Developer -AnentityundertakingmarinedevelopmentwithinUKEEZ/REZandTerritorialWaters

DOW–DepthOfWater

DP–DynamicPositioning

DPO–DynamicPositioningOperator

EIA–EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

ESCA–EuropeanSubseaCablesAssociation(formerlySCUKandUKCPC)

FEED–FrontEndEngineeringandDesign

HazardArea–ThatareacentredaroundanindividualOREIstructureadjacenttoasubmarinecable,whichreflectstheOREIstructure’sstatusasahazardforanyvesseloperatingonsaidcable.TheradiusoftheHazardAreashallbeagreedbasedonthelevelofrisktothevesselandthevessel’sowncapability.

HSE–HealthandSafetyExecutive

ICPC–InternationalCableProtectionCommittee

IPC–InfrastructurePlanningCommission

ISM–InternationalSafetyManagement

LARS–LaunchandRecoverySystem

MMO–MarineManagementOrganisation

MOU–MemorandumOfUnderstanding

NationalInfrastructureDirectorate–bodyreplacingtheIPCundertheLocalismAct

NM–NauticalMile(1.852km)

O&M–OperationsandMaintenance

OFGEM–OfficeofGasandElectricityMarkets

OREI–OffshoreRenewableEnergyInstallation

OWF – Offshore Wind Farm including associated structures such as Met Masts andSubstations

IN CONFIDENCE



Page6of43


REA–RenewableEnergyAssociation

ROV-RemotelyOperatedVehicle

RUK–RenewableUK

SCUK–SubseaCablesUK(formerlyUKCPC)

Stakeholder-AnentitywhoisaseabeduserorapartywithvestedinterestwithintheUKExclusiveEconomicZone

SubmarineCable-Anunderwatertelecommunicationorpowerorcontrolcable

TheCrownEstate-Theorganisation,establishedbyanActofParliament,whichmanagesthehereditaryestatesoftheCrownonbehalfoftheUK

TWG–crosssectorTechnicalWorkingGroup (comprisingrepresentatives fromESCA,RUK,REAandTheCrownEstate)

UNCLOS-UnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea

WTG–WindTurbineGenerator

ZeroImpact-Adevelopment/activitythathasnoimpactuponaStakeholder.

2 EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisdocument(referredtoasthe"Guidelines")providesguidanceontheconsiderationsthatshould be given by all Stakeholders in the development of projects requiring proximityagreementsbetweenoffshorewindfarmprojectsandsubseacableprojectsinUKWaters.The Guidelines address installation and maintenance constraints related to wind farmstructures, associated cables and other submarine cables where such structures andsubmarinecableswilloccupyproximateareasofseabed.

TheGuidelinesdiscussinsection1someofthekeyfactorsdeterminingproximitylimitstobe taken into account in reaching proximity and crossing agreement. Further details areprovidedinAnnexA.

TheimportanceofearlyStakeholderconsultationshouldbeappreciatedattheoutsetanditisrecommendedthatthisisactionedasearlyaspossibleasinsection2andfurtherexpandedin Annex B. The location of existing seabed infrastructure within potential projectdevelopmentareascouldhaveasignificantimpactuponthelayoutorlocationofaprojectanditsdesign.DiscussionandStakeholderengagementareconsideredtobethecornerstonesofgeneratingthegreatestopportunitiesforasuccessfuloutcome.

TheGuidelinesarenotintendedtoprovideaprescriptivesolutiononproximitybut,insection3,offersomeguidancefor indicativeseparationdistances thatare intendedasastartingpointforStakeholderdiscussions.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page7of43


The Guidelines provide guidance in section 4 on a process for determining site specificproximity limits including factors toconsiderwithinriskassessments thatmaybeusedtohelp informproximitydiscussionsandagreements.A checklistof key issues is included inAnnex C. The Guidelines also propose some basic principles to form the foundation ofdiscussionson safe and appropriate solutionson a caseby casebasis, includingpotentialmitigationmeasures.

Oncethepartieshaveagreedsite-specificproximitylimits,thefinalstepintheprocessisthedraftingofaproximityagreementwithaccompanyingmethodstatement.Section5providesguidanceonthistopic.

TheGuidelinesalsocontainguidanceinsection6onhowtodealwithmultiplecablecrossingsin close proximity. Depending upon site specific layout, thismay need specific attention,particularlywiththeincreasingsizeofoffshorewindfarms.

ItisexpectedthattheGuidelineswillprovidetheunderlyingbasisuponwhichallStakeholderscanreachamutuallyacceptableproximityagreement.Intheeventthatproximitydiscussionsfalter,anultimaterecourseintheformofadisputeresolutionprocessisoutlinedinsection11.

3 SCOPEOFTHEGUIDELINEThescopeoftheGuidelineswithrespecttotheproximitydistancesandwaterdepthsthatitshouldbeappliedto,issummarisedinFigure1belowandthefollowingtext.

Proximitydistances

Figure1:ProximitydistancesconsideredintheGuidelines

IN CONFIDENCE



Page8of43


TheregulatoryframeworksurroundingthisdocumentisbaseduponcurrentUKpractices.Itis the considerationof theGuidelines thatnoproximityagreement is requiredwhere theminimum approach of planned subsea development and planned/existing subseainfrastructure exceeds one nautical mile (1NM) (1.852 km). However, at a separation ofapproximately1NM,itisconsideredgoodpracticethathigh-levelconsultationisundertakentherebyensuringthatallStakeholdersareawareofeachother’sactivitiesandrequirements.

For a planned subsea development that iswithin 1NM of existing subsea infrastructure,dialogue needs to be established between the Stakeholders and the consideration of theGuidelinesshouldapplytoestablishmutuallyacceptableproximitylimits.

Theindicativeseparationdistanceof750metresgiveninsection3oftheGuidelinesisnotintendedtoprovideaprescriptivesolutiononproximitybutshouldbeusedasasensiblebasecasetobeginStakeholderdiscussionstodetermineactual,casespecificseparationdistances.Multiplecrossingsatlessthan500metresseparationshouldbeconsideredasbeingasingleentitywithassociatedpotentialseabedsterilisation.

Waterdepths

For the purpose of the Guidelines the proximity impacts between renewable energyinstallationsandsubmarinecablesinarangeofwaterdepthsupto75metres,havebeenassessed.Renewableenergydevelopmentsinwaterdepthsinexcessof75metreswillrequirea re-appraisal of the issues assessed here and are therefore beyond the scope of theGuidelines.

4 INTRODUCTIONTheon-goingdevelopmentofoffshorewindfarmshasresultedintheneedforcrossindustryendorsedguidelinesontheproximityofsubmarinecablesandwindfarms.OtherformsofOffshoreRenewableEnergyInstallations(OREI)currentlybeingdeveloped,suchastidalandwave energy, may also be in close proximity to existing seabed infrastructure. Theseguidelines however focus solely on proximity between the various offshore wind farmstructures(OWF)andsubseacables.

There are common interests between offshore wind farm developers/owners and cableownersregardingsafety,accessandmaintenanceandthereisanecessityforthepartiestospatially interact in terms of access to the seabed. The increased use of the seabed forrenewableenergydevelopmentsandthepotentialformultipleusesoftheseabedmustbeappreciated.

TheprimarycommoninterestsofthepartiesaresummarisedinFigure2below:

IN CONFIDENCE



Page9of43


Figure2:Primarycommoninterests

The informationsupplied in theGuidelineshasbeencompiledbyacross-sectorTechnicalWorking Group (TWG) comprising members of ESCA (formerly SCUK and UKCPC),RenewableUK (RUK), Renewable Energy Association (REA), The Crown Estate andrepresentatives from telecommunication and offshore renewable energy sector owners,developers,operators,installersandmaintenanceproviders.

TheGuidelines are thereforebasedupon the combinedbroadexperienceandknowledgebasecontainedwithinthesubmarinecableindustry,theoffshorerenewableenergyindustryandTheCrownEstate.

Subject to theDisclaimeron the coverpageof thisdocument, it is the intention that theGuidelinesshouldbeusedasareferencedocumentonthesubjectmatterwiththeaimsofpromotingthehigheststandardsofconstruction,operability,reliability,maintainabilityandsafetyintheoffshorerenewableenergyandsubmarinecableenvironmentcommensuratewithco-existenceincloseproximitytoeachother.

ItisveryimportanttoappreciatethattheGuidelinesdonotprovideaprescriptivesolutiononproximity.Thedistancescontainedwithinthisdocumentareintendedtoprovideastartingpoint for Stakeholder discussions. It is recognised that an OWF developermay generallyprefer to locate structures closer to existing seabed infrastructure than the Guidelinesindicate. Under certain conditions and layouts this may well be possible. Conversely, anexisting seabed infrastructure owner / operator may prefer an increase in the proximitydistancetoanOWFstructure.

Theoptimisedproximitydistancewillonlybeachievedbydialogueandagreementbetweenthepartiesbaseduponariskassessmentprocesswhereappropriate.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page10of43


It is in the interest of all Stakeholders that to achieve amutually acceptable andoptimalproximityagreement,veryskilledandexperiencedresourcesshouldbeutilisedduringthesediscussions.ItisoftheutmostimportancethatallStakeholdersunderstandandappreciateeach other’s requirements and safety issues. All parties should therefore commenceproximitydiscussionsasearlyaspossible,proactivelyandwithopenminds.

Evidencebasedstudy

TosupportthedevelopmentoftheproximityguidelineTheCrownEstatecommissionedanevidentiarydesktop(andinterview)studyinSeptember2011(TheCrownEstate,2012).

ThestudyreportcanbefoundonthewebsiteofTheCrownEstatelinkbelow:

www.thecrownestate.co.uk/marine/cables-and-pipelines/studies-and-guidance/

Theevidentiarystudyisnotintendedasaguidelinedocumentinitsownrightbutisprovidedasareferencetoolfortheparties.

5 KEYFACTORSDETERMININGPROXIMITYLIMITS

Submarinecableshavebeensufferingfaultsfromtheoutsetoftheir160+yearhistoryandsotheneedtorestoreasystemquicklyhasalwaysbeenparamount.Stakeholdersinadiscussiononproximitylimitsbetweensubmarinecablesandoffshorewindfarmstructuresareadvisedtodevelopandagreesafeandappropriatesolutionsonacasebycasebasistodeterminehowmuchsearoomisactuallyneededtoefficientlyandsafelyexecuteacablerepair.

Theexperienceacquiredinrepairingsubmarinecableshasevolvedintoarecognisedsetofmaintenance and repair processes and procedures. In order to assist all sectors inunderstandingtheinteractionsandimpacts,fourkeydeterminantsofsearoomrequiredbyacableshipare:

Ø Faultlocation;Ø Cablerecovery;Ø Cablerepair;andØ Re-deployment.

FordetailpleaserefertoAnnexA.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page11of43


6 STAKEHOLDERCONSULTATIONIt is vital that all sectors engage with each other at as early a stage as possible in thedevelopmentprocess,regardlessofwhichsectorthedeveloper isfromandwhoownstheexistinginfrastructure.Thisengagementwillfacilitateappropriateproximityagreementsandshouldcontinuethroughouttheconsentingprocessandthroughtheoperationallifetimeoftheassetasillustratedinthebelowprojectcycleoverview,Figure3.

Figure3:Stakeholderconsultationinallphasesoftheprojectlifecycle

ThereissignificantgrowthinOWFsatthepresenttimeandhencemuchdiscussionhereinassumes that the new development is an OWF (and the existing infrastructure being asubmarine cable). It should be accepted that the Guidelines apply equally if the newdevelopmentisasubmarinecableandtheexistinginfrastructureisanOWF.

Stakeholderengagementshouldcommenceassoonasispracticablefollowingtheawardofa development zone or project area and continue with all Stakeholders, throughout theprocess,untiltheprojectisfullycommissioned.

Please refer to Annex B for further details on proposed Stakeholder consultation andinteractionsinUKwaters.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page12of43


7 GUIDANCEFORINDICATIVESEPARATIONDISTANCES

TheGuidelinesdonotprovideaprescriptivesolutiononproximity, rather, theystress theneed for proactive dialogue about a site specific, risk based outcome. However, someguidancefor indicativeseparationdistances isoutlinedhere.This is intendedtoprovideastartingpointforStakeholderdiscussions.

Twoprimaryissuestobeobservedwhenconsideringseparationfromthirdpartyvesselsare:

CableMaintenanceVesselSafetyZone–TheSafetyZonearoundthevesselwithrestrictedmanoeuvringability(maintenanceorrepairvessel),fromapproachofothervessels,shallbeestablishedinlinewithCOLREGS1972.Itisalsonormallyrequestedbythevesselmaster(inaccordance with Article V of the Convention for the Protection of Submarine TelegraphCables, 1884), for all ships to keep at least 1NM clear whilst they are engaged in cableoperationsthatrestricttheirabilitytomanoeuvre.

Wind farm Structure Safety Zone –Wind farm operators can request, via the Electricity(OffshoreGeneratingStations)(SafetyZones)(ApplicationProceduresandControlofAccess)Regulations2007(SI/2007/1948),thattypicallya50msafetyzonebeestablishedaroundanywindfarmstructure.GuidancefortheimplementationofsuchsafetyzonesisprovidedbyDECC(DECC,2011).

Twofundamentalconceptsmustbeconsideredwhenderivingagenericproximitydistance:

Ø WorkingZone,appliedeithersideofthesubseacable;andØ HazardArea,appliedaroundthecablerepairvessel.

TheWorkingZoneandHazardAreaconceptsarefurtherdiscussedbelowandcanbefoundillustratedlaterinFigures5,6and7.TheseshowinghowtheWorkingZoneandHazardAreawouldbeappliedtoasubseacablerepairvesselinvariousscenarios.

WorkingZone-AWorkingZoneisrequiredeithersideofanin-servicesubmarinecabletoenable access for cable maintenance and repair operations by a suitable vessel. TheparametersoftheWorkingZoneareafunctionofmanyvariables,severalbeingsite-specific.Nevertheless,theWorkingZoneismostpertinentlythespacerequiredbyavesseltoconductalloperationswhichacablerepairpotentiallycomprises,includingthosediscussedindetailwithinAnnexA.

TheWorkingZonefortraditionalrepairscenariosislikelytobeintheorderof500meithersideoftheexistingsubseacable.Thisisbasedontheexpectedarearequiredtoundertakecablefaultlocationusingtrailedelectrodes,grapnelandfinalbightdeploymentoperations.GreaterdetailcanbefoundinTCEsEvidentiaryStudy.

Guidanceinthisdocumentisconsideredappropriateforwaterdepthsupto75m.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page13of43


Considerationshouldalsobegiven,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:

Ø Proximityofotheradjacentdevelopments(i.e.oilandgas);Ø Proximityofhazards,densityoftrafficandnavigationschemes;Ø Type,sizeandmanoeuvrabilityofvessels;Ø Supportvessels;Ø Cabletypeandexistingburialstatus/protection;Ø Alternative repair options, such as a lay-through repair, or

adjustedfinalbightlocation;Ø Predictedprevailingmetoceanconditions(wind,wave,current,

tides)etc.;andØ Seabedtype.

NothingintheGuidelinesisintendedtodetractfromtheMaster’sresponsibilityforthesafenavigationofthevesselandthesafetyofthoseonboard.TheMasterwillalwaysretaintheprerogativetodepartfromtheGuidelines,oranysubsequentplanoragreementreachedasaresultoftheGuidelines,ifcircumstancesdictate(Ref.AnnexA,Section13.9).

HazardArea-Independentof,andinadditionto,theWorkingZone,wheretherearefixedstructuresneartoavesselundertakingcableoperationsclosetothelimitoftheexpectedorplannedWorkingZone,aHazardAreashouldbeconsideredasatriggerradiusaroundthevessel.IfthereispotentialforaWTGtocomewithinthisHazardAreaasaresultofvesselmovement,thenadditionalriskassessmentneedstobecarriedoutanddeterminationmadeon the need for application of any appropriate pre-planned risk mitigations. Where thissituation occurs, additional consideration needs to be given to supplementary controlprotocols,weatherconsiderations,etc.

The radius of the Hazard Area needs to be determined by discussion between the keystakeholders (e.g.wind farmdeveloper, theexisting subsea infrastructureowner andanyaffectedmaintenanceprovider).TheHazardAreashouldprovidesearoomtoamelioraterisksofworkincloseproximitytoaWTG.Ifthereisnootherdirectionforopeningthatdiscussion,thenitisrecommendedthatconsiderationbeginsataminimumof250metres.Evenatthisminimum distance, there will still be constraints on vessel operations including, but notlimitedto,repairproceduresandweathercriteria.

Figure4showshowtheWorkingZoneandHazardAreawouldbeapplied toasubmarinecable repair vesselwhenoperatingon the cable line, i.e. during jointing,ROVburial/faultlocation,orstockcablelaying.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page14of43


Figure4:Vesseloperationonthecableline

Figure5illustrateshowtheHazardAreawouldbeappliedtoasubmarinecablerepairvesselwhenoperatingattheextentoftheWorkingZone.ThisbeingwhendeployingafinalbightbetweentheadjacentWTGsthuspresentingareducedrisksolution.

Figure5:VesseloperationontheextentoftheWorkingZonewhendeployingafinalbight

Figure6illustrateshowtheHazardAreawouldbeappliedtoasubmarinecablerepairvesselwhendrivingawayfromthecablelineduringagrapneldrivetorecoverthecable.Notethat

IN CONFIDENCE



Page15of43


theadjacentWTGrepresentsasignificantriskshouldtherebeanylossinvesselposition.Anoptiontoreducetheriskofthisoccurrenceistoplandrivesbetweenturbines.

Figure6:Vesseloperationwhendrivingawayfromthecablelineduringagrapneldriveto

recoverthecable

8 PROCESSFORDETERMININGSITESPECIFICPROXIMITYLIMITS

A generic set of limiting distances cannot be derived for all cable / wind farm proximityscenarioswithoutrecoursetoalargenumberofcaveatsandexceptions.Therecommendedapproachistousetheprinciplesofaholisticriskbasedprocessfordeterminingsitespecificproximity limits. This allows consideration of a range of external influences, both thosebeyondthecontrolofthepartiesandthoseinternalinfluencesthatcanbeaffectedbytheparties.

Oncethepartieshaveagreedsite-specificproximitylimits,thefinalstepintheprocessisthedraftingofaproximityagreementwithaccompanyingmethodstatements.

TheoverallprocessisoutlinedinFigure7below:

IN CONFIDENCE



Page16of43


Figure7-Processfordeterminingsite-specificproximitylimitsanddraftingaproximity

agreement

Risk to Personnel and the influence of HSE legislation and regulation is considered to beincludedunderExternalinfluencesinthediagramabove(Figure7),aswellasrisksincludedinOperationalStandardsunderInternalinfluences.

PersonnelriskisproperlygovernedbydetailedlegislationandisthereforeoutsidethescopeoftheGuidelines.However,itshouldbenotedthatSafetyOfLifeAtSeaisoneoftheprimarydrivers foradopting sensibleproximityagreementsand serves tounderpineverydecisionprocessforeitherriskassessmentormitigationselectionandapplication.

RiskAssessment

Inordertocometoasite-specificagreementbetweentheinvolvedpartiesitwillusuallybenecessarytoundertakeariskassessmentduringdiscussionsonproximityagreements.Thisisachievedbyapplyingthecyclicapproachembeddedintheprocess,asillustratedinFigure8andconsideredbelow.

Theriskassessmentshouldincludeananalysisofallrelevantsitespecificinfluences(externaland internal),examplesofwhicharegivenabove. Inorder toprovidea sensiblebasis fordiscussion,risksneedtobeassessedrealistically.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page17of43


Fig8-Cyclicapproachtoriskassessment

Safe separation is required between existing submarine cables, WTG and other OWFstructurestoensurethecontinuanceofreasonable,timelyandcosteffectiveavailabilitytomaintain both the existing and the newly installed assets. The requirements of eachstakeholderarehoweverlikelytovarydependingonthesite-specificcircumstances.

InorderfortheinvolvedpartiestoreachagreementitwillbenecessarytodeterminetheAsLowAsReasonablyPracticable("ALARP")risk level that isacceptabletoeachStakeholder.Thiswillbe site-specificand theappetite for risk is likely tovary.Thevarious site-specificissuesshouldbecarefullyanalysedinrespectofriskimpact,andamutuallyacceptableALARPlevelofriskagreed.Considerationoftheacceptableriskswillthenallowinformeddiscussionsonthepotentialmitigationsandleadtosite-specificproximitylimits.

Itshouldbeappreciatedfromtheoutsetbyallpartiesthatnoactivityiseverentirelyfreefromrisk.Companiesandregulatorsdohoweverrequirethatsafetyrisksarereducedtolevelsthat are ALARP. The technique associatedwith this often encompasses the use of a RiskSeverityAnalysistotrytoquantifytheissues.

PleaserefertoAnnexCSection15.3fordetailsofALARPprincipalsandaRiskSeverityAnalysis

IN CONFIDENCE



Page18of43


Potentialmitigationmeasurestosupportreachingagreement

Beforedecisionsaremaderegardingproximityandcablecrossings,othersolutionsshouldbeconsidered to potentially mitigate or reduce the impact. Such mitigation measures mayinfluenceaproximityagreement.Examplesofpotentialmitigationmeasuresinclude:

Ø Diverting the existing cable around a wind farm rather thanthroughit;

Ø Provisionofadditionalsparecableforstockandotherwetplantincaseofrepair;

Ø Change the cable repair vessel within the maintenanceagreementandthenecessaryfinancialconsiderations;

Ø Joint use of cable repair vessels in a specific / genericmaintenanceagreement;

Ø ConstructionofawindfarminadifferentareaorreconfiguringtheWTGlayout;

Ø Ifmultiplecrossingsareunavoidable,discussionsoftherequirednumber,locationandspacingshouldtakeplaceandbeagreed;

Ø Undertakeappropriatesurveystoidentifyexactlocationof“inservice”and“outofservice”cablesasrequired;

Ø Agreementonsite-specificmethodologiesforrepair;andØ Methodsofarrestinganylossofvesselposition,e.g.,emergency

anchoringprocedures,supportvessels,etc.

Thislistisnotexhaustiveand,dependinguponcircumstances,additionalmitigationscouldalso be developed by the parties through mutually acceptable operational (and other)proceduresinvolvingwindfarmdeveloper/operator/ownerandtheexistingcableowner/marinerepaircontractoretc.

Thebenefitsof“safehavens”and“escapecorridors”within largewind farmsaspotentialmitigations of riskwere consideredby the TWG. The consensusof discussionswith cablemaintenanceproviderswasthatsuchmeasuresdonotdeliverappreciablemitigation.

PrincipalMitigationconsiderationsforgrossde-confliction

Followingconsiderationoftheissuesofproximityandsafeoperationofco-locatedsubseainfrastructure,itisapparentthatthepresenceofanOWFdevelopmentwillrestrictorpreventdevelopment opportunities for new Subsea Cables through OWFs without both partiescompromising respective systems protection, security and performance objectives. Suchcompromisemaybeeitherunacceptableorundesirable.Optionsformitigationcanthereforebecomeconstrained.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page19of43


Someexamplesofpotentialmitigationmeasuresinthisinstanceinclude:

Ø RoutinganewsubseacablethroughanexistingcorridorthroughanOWFbyvirtueofapre-existingsubseacable;

Ø RoutenewsubseacablesaroundOWFdevelopments,betweenprojectsorthroughwindrecoveryareaswheresuitablecorridorsmayexist;and

Ø Subsea cable developers select alternative routes away fromOWFs.

9 PROXIMITYAGREEMENTWhensite-specificproximitylimitshavebeenagreed,abilateralproximityagreementwithaccompanyingmethod statement can thenbedraftedbasedona standard template andtheseguidelines.Suchaproximityagreementshouldbebasedontheformatandspiritofexistingcablecrossingandproximityagreementsincommonusethroughoutbothindustries,whereappropriate.

Itisrecommendedthatwherepossible,finalisationofwindfarmlayoutplanningshouldnotbeundertakenuntilsuchtimeasProximityAgreementsandtherequirementsthereinhavebeen properly reviewed, discussed and agreed at least in principle, with the wind farmdeveloper,thecableownerandanyaffectedmaintenanceproviders.

Survivabilityofagreementsisessentialtotheparties’interests.

Figure9:Thedraftingofasite-specificProximityAgreementandMethodStatement

IN CONFIDENCE



Page20of43


9.1 ProximityagreementrecommendationTherecommendedapproach is touse theprincipleofabilateralproximityagreement foreachspecificscenario.

It is recommended that the following key elements are included in such a proximityagreement:

Ø Clausestodefinetheliabilitiesandrightsofbothparties;Ø Theexclusion/inclusionofconsequentiallosses;Ø Detailsof financialcompensationarrangementsforeachparty

whereapplicablerelatingtospecificarrangements;Ø Clearly defined limits of the area to which the Proximity

Agreementapplies;Ø Detailsofhowtheworkwouldbecarriedout,toincludemethod

statements provided by the party carrying out the work andacceptedbytheotherpartyassuitablepriortoworkproceeding,it is recommended that installationproceduresbe included intheAgreement;

Ø Futuremaintenance requirements of both assets. This shouldincludethemethodbywhichnotificationofoperationsbyeachparty is given to the other and the provision and storage ofadditionalplanttosupportagreedrepairmethodologyandtheestablishmentoflocal3rdpartysupportvessels,ifidentifiedasarequirement;

Ø Definitionoftheexpiry/survivaloftheAgreement(forexample,atthedecommissioningand/orrecoveryofoneorotheroftheassets);and

Ø Provisionofrepresentativesfromonepartytotheotherparty'soperations and their rights, obligations and limitation ofauthority.

9.2 SitespecificmethodstatementAmethodstatementisanessentialpartofanyproximityagreement.Thefollowingisataskchecklistwhichthepartiescanuseasabasisfordraftingasite-specificmethodstatement.Itisnot intendedtobeanexhaustive listof itemstobe includedbyprescriptionbutshouldpromptevaluationofthemostusefulandrelevantissuesforconsideration.

Thereneedstobereciprocitywithrespecttomethodstatementsforrepairingandinstallingacrossbothindustries.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page21of43


Prerequirementforarepair

Ø Delivery of all as-laid positions of infrastructure – Lat/Longs,geodeticdatum’s,cableburial,WTGdimensionsandbladearc,crossingconstructions,rockplacements,etc.;

Ø Emergency 24/7 contact procedures including escalations,details of any field-specific VHF communication channels anddetailsofsiteengineers;

Ø Historicalmetoceandataoncurrentsandwindtoinformmarineproviders (maynotbeavailable -especiallyduring theO&Mphase);

Ø Establishnotificationrequirementsduringoperations,i.e.,dailyreports,noticeofseabedinteraction,surfacevesselactivity,etc.

Ø Purchaseofadditionalexpendablegear,e.g., additional cable,crossing materials (should preferably be agreed upon duringearlypre-constructiondiscussions);

Ø Establishadditionalmanningrequirements,e.g.,additionalreps,marinewarrantysurveyors,anchorwatchcrews,etc.;and

Ø Establishbridgingdocuments,asappropriate.

Pre-repair

Ø Considerinstallationoflocalpositionreferencesystems;Ø Considertemporarycessationofinterruptibleworksnearby;Ø Establishpreferredsubcontractorsinareaforguardboats,tugs,

othersupportvessels;Ø ConfirmationthatWTG’s,whichareintheareaofthecableship

operations, are stopped and locked in position, preferably ‘Y’position,asnecessary;

Ø Depending on fault nature and location, powering down ofclosestinter-array/collectorcables,asnecessary;

Ø Uptodatemetoceandata;Ø ‘Live’ metocean data feed from any applicable on-site

equipmenttoestablishweatherwindowforrepair(waveriderbuoysonlygiveoutpresentcondition-notforecasts);

Ø Distribution list from all parties for notifications during repairops;

Ø Boardingrequirementsofanyadditionalpersonnel;Ø DPtrialsnearbyrepairsitetoestablishallsystemsfunctioning

correctly;andØ Coordinationmeetingandconfirmationofcommunicationlines

(shoreprojectmanagement).

IN CONFIDENCE



Page22of43


Duringrepair

Ø Dailyactivityreporting;Ø Dependentoncommunicationplanwithinproximityagreement,

notificationswhenworksareexpectedtobeseabed intrusive;and

Ø Assistanceinenforcing1NMexclusionzonearoundrepairvesselforothermarinetraffic(asnorequirementasofyetexistforawindfarmtohaveMarineCoordinatorsduringtheO&Mphase,theremaynotbepersonnelashoretomonitormarinetrafficonadailybasis).

Postrepair

Ø Sharingofrevisedinfrastructurelocationdata;andØ Postrepairreviewmeeting/LessonsLearntexercisetofeedback

improvementstotheprocessorrelevantindustrycontacts.

10 MULTIPLECABLECROSSINGSINCLOSEPROXIMITY

A standard protocol for submarine cable crossings is well established and can be founddetailedwithinICPCrecommendations2&3andalsoESCAPolicyNo1.

Multiplecablecrossingsincloseproximityhavebeenundertakenonanumberofoccasionsand are therefore not a new scenario. However, ideally, crossings should be kept to aminimumfromthepointofviewoftheexistingcable(s).

Multiplecrossingswithinawindfarmarea,forexampleatelecommunicationcablecrossinganumberofinter-arraypowercablesasshownonFigure10(forillustrationoftheissueonly)shouldgenerallybeavoidedormitigated.

Theamountandfrequencyofcrossingsshouldformpartofdiscussionsoncrossing/proximityagreementbetweentheparties.

Ifcrossingswerelessthan500mapartitmaymakerecoveryoftheunderlyingcablebetweencrossingsunsafeandimpractical.Assuch,crossingsatlessthan500mseparationshouldbeconsidered as being a single entity and subsequently sterilising that area of seabed andexisting cable. Any repair of the crossed cablewould involve cutting either side of thesecrossingsandlaybackoverthetop.

Itisappreciatedthatthedevelopmentoflargeoffshorewindfarmshascreatedthepotentialforahighconcentrationofcrossingsbymultipleexport,collectorand/orarraycables.Thiscouldresultinlimitingtheavailablespaceforcablerepairvesselstooperateandalsoposetechnicalproblemsregardingcablerecovery/replacementandrepairwithinthecrossingarea.Itisrecommendedthatthefollowingprinciplesareinitiallyconsidered:

Ø Multiplecrossingsofexistingcablesbyexport,collectorand/orarraycablesshouldbeavoidedwhereverpossible;

IN CONFIDENCE



Page23of43


Ø Where multiple cable crossings are deemed necessary, thecrossing cables should be spaced so that safe, timely andeconomicalrepairstoboththecrossingandthecrossedcablescanbeconductedwithoutprejudice.

Thepotentialimpactsofmultiplecablecrossingsshouldbecarefullyassessed.Thisshouldbeincludedinthediscussionsofproximity/crossingagreements.Aswithallconstructionwork,there aremany different situations that will need to be consideredwhenmultiple cablecrossings in close proximity are being discussed. Before cables are laid close to or acrossexistingcable(s),itisrecommendedthatthepartiesshouldconsiderthefollowing:

Ø Whentheoperation(s)istobecarriedout;Ø Whichtechnicalmethod(s)willbeused;Ø Whether a pre-lay survey is required along both the existing

cable(s)andtherouteofthenewcables;Ø At what approach distance from the existing cable(s) the

crossing cables can be buried by plough/ROV/othermeans ofjetting;

Ø Ifrequired,whatkindofprotectionshouldbeusedbetweenthecablesatthecrossingpoint(Polyurethane,concrete/bitumenmattresses, rock placement etc.) and the thickness of theseparationlayer;

Ø Intheeventofalaterrepair,whichtechnicalmethodsaretobeused;

Ø HowclosecananROVoragrapnelbeusedtotheotherparty’scable(s);and

Ø Confirmwhohaspriorityinthecaseofsimultaneousfaults.

Figure10:PotentialMultiplecrossingswithinawindfarm(Ref:TheCrownEstate)

11 DISPUTERESOLUTIONPROCESS

IN CONFIDENCE



Page24of43


It is recommended that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the parties'negotiations toestablishanagreeddistancebetweenthesubmarinecableandwind farmdevelopmentinquestion(adispute)mayberesolvedbyusingatypicalmediationprocess,anexampleofwhichisshownbelow.

Intheeventofanymatterforexpertdetermination,seniorrepresentativesofthepartiesshall,within[30]calendardaysofserviceofawrittennoticefromanypartytotheotherparties(adisputesnotice),holdameeting(adisputemeeting)inanefforttoresolvethedispute.Ifthepartiesareunabletoagreeuponavenue,thedisputemeetingshallbeheldatanappropriateneutrallocation.Eachpartyshalluseallreasonableendeavourstosendarepresentativewhohasauthoritytosettlethedisputetoattendthedisputemeeting.

Iftherepresentativesofthepartiescannotresolvethedisputewithin[60]calendardaysaftertheserviceofadisputesnotice,whetherornotadisputemeetinghasbeenheld,thedisputemust be referred to a senior manager of UK operations of each party who must use allreasonableendeavourstoresolvethedisputewithin[30]businessdaysafterthedispute isreferredtothem(referralperiod).

Anydisputewhichisnotresolvedwithinthereferralperiod,shall,attherequestofanypartymade within [30] calendar days of the expiry of the referral period, be referred to anindependentexpertfordetermination.

Thepartiesshallagreeontheappointmentoftheexpertandshallagreewiththeexpertthetermsoftheirappointment.Ifthepartiesareunabletoagreeontheidentityoftheexpert,orifthepersonproposedisunableorunwillingtoact,then,within[30]calendardaysofeitherpartyservingdetailsofasuggestedexpertontheotherortheproposedexpertdecliningtoact, either party shall then be entitled to request that an expert be appointed by anindependentarbiter.Allcostsofandassociatedwiththerequestfortheappointmentofanexpert by the independent arbiter shall be borne equally between the parties. The expertappointed may be an individual, partnership, association or body corporate and shall begenerally recognised as an expert in the field of cable installation andmaintenance. Theindependentarbitershallbemutuallyagreedbetweentheparties.

Theexpertshallactonthefollowingbasis:

a. on their appointment, the expert shall confirm his neutrality,independence and the absence of conflicts in determining thedispute;

b. theexpertshallactasanexpertandnotasanarbitrator;c. the expert's determination shall (in the absence of manifest

error) be final and binding on the parties and not subject toappeal;

d. the expert shall decide the procedure to be followed in thedetermination in accordance with this agreement and inconsultationwiththepartiesandshallberequestedtomakehisdeterminationinwriting,withreasons,within[30]calendardaysaftertheirappointment.

e. Fortheavoidanceofdoubt,allcostsrelatedtotheinstructiontheexpertshallbeborneequallybytheparties.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page25of43


12 RECOMMENDEDCONSIDERATIONS,GUIDELINESANDREFERENCES

WhenplanningtherouteofsubmarinecablesitisrecommendedthatdevelopersconsultthefollowingInternationalCableProtectionCommittee(ICPC)andESCAguidelines/policies:

ICPC–www.iscpc.org

Ø RecommendationNo.1:“ManagementofRedundantandOutofServiceCables”

Ø RecommendationNo.2:“RecommendedRoutingandReportingCriteriaforCablesinProximitytoOthers”.

Ø Recommendation No.3: “Criteria to be applied to ProposedCrossingsbetweenSubmarineTelecommunicationsCablesandPipelines/PowerCables

Ø Recommendation No.4: “Recommended co-ordinationproceduresforrepairoperationsnearinservicecablesystems”

Ø Recommendation No.7: “Procedure to Be Followed WhilstOffshoreCivilEngineeringWorkIsUndertakenInTheVicinityOfActiveSubmarineCableSystems”

ESCA–www.escaeu.org

Ø PolicyNo.1:“CableCrossingAgreements”

DECC,2011.NationalPolicyStatementforRenewableEnergyInfrastructure(EN-3).[Online].Availableat:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108510793/9780108510793.pdf

Electricity(OffshoreGeneratingStations)(SafetyZones)(ApplicationProceduresandControlofAccess)Regulations2007(SI/2007/1948),.Availableat:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1948/contents/made

TheCrownEstate,2012. Submarinecablesandoffshore renewableenergy installations–ProximityStudy:

www.thecrownestate.co.uk/marine/cables-and-pipelines/studies-and-guidance/

13 ANNEXA-KEYFACTORSDETERMININGPROXIMITYLIMITS

The experience acquired in repairing submarine cables has evolved a recognised set ofmaintenance and repair processes and procedures. In order to assist all sectors in

IN CONFIDENCE



Page26of43


understandingtheinteractionsandimpacts,thefourkeydeterminantsofsearoomrequiredbyacableshiparesummarisedinthisAnnex,namely:

Ø Faultlocation;Ø Cablerecovery;Ø Cablerepair;andØ Repairbightdeployment.

Inaddition, the followingbasicoperating issuesgoverning thedeterminationofproximitylimitsareaddressed:

Ø Vesseldesignandcapability;Ø Anchoredoperations;Ø Operations within a Hazard Area (or Area of Enhanced

OperationalAwareness);Ø Safetymanagementandcompetency;andØ TheroleoftheMaster.

Part of the information contained in thisAnnex is extracted fromTCE’s Evidentiary Studywhichcontainsmorein-depthinformationaboutthesubjects,includingoverviewtablesandworkedexamples.Itisgenerallyrecommendedtoconsultthisstudyreportwhenconsideringspecificissuestobeanalysedforinclusioninaproximityagreement.

13.1 FaultlocationConfirmationof fault locationandcable recovery is carriedoutbyROVswheremetoceanconditionsallow.Theuseofelectrodes,trailedbehindtherepairshipasitzigzagsitswayalongthecableroutemayhoweverbenecessaryforfaultlocationundercertainconditions.

Trailed electrodes remain awell proven technique for fault finding in both telecoms andpowercablerepairoperations.Forexpediencyitiscommonforthemainrepairvesseltocarryout the work but auxiliary vessels may also be employed if these are available and theoperationalconditionsaresuitable.

Ineithercase,thesea-roomrequiredforthevesseltosafelyandefficientlymanoeuvrewhilstusingtrailedelectrodesmustbeproperlyconsideredwithintheproximityagreement.

AtypicalmanoeuvringpatternisillustratedinFigure11below.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page27of43


Figure11:Theprocessofdeterminingfaultlocationthroughtheuseoftrailedelectrodes.

(InternalDocument,GMSL,2011)

Electrodeswouldbeapproximately150minlengthin50mDOW,andtypicaldistanceofflinewouldbe400-500m.Thelatterdistance isafunctionofelectrodelength,ship lengthandrequirementtotowtheelectrodesfarenoughawayfromthecablelinesothatanydeflectionissufficientlypositivetoinformajudgementonfaultlocationandnotbeovertlyaffectedbybackgroundnoise.

13.2 CablerecoveryThe recovery of telecommunication cables for repairmaybe undertakenby conventionalgrapplingtechniques, theuseofROVoracombinationofboth.Thesea-roomrequiredtoefficientlyexecutecablerecoveryisoneofthekeydeterminantsofcableandOWFproximity.Thisshouldbeproperlyaddressedinthedrawingupofproximityagreementsandassociateddocumentation.

ROVs&RelatedSubseaEquipment

Inmostcases,ROVinterventionwouldbethepreferredcableinterventionmethodinwaterdepthsupto200m,atleastinitiallywhenthefaultlocationwouldbeinspected.OnceinitialROV inspection has been completed then the options become broader ranging, includingtowedgrapnels.The recoverymethodwouldbedictatedbyseabed type,depthofburial,environmental parameters, cableofflinedistance (inwhich caseROV is preferable), cabletype,proximityofhazards,etc.

Ifthesefactorsallow,oncethefaulthasbeenlocatedthecablewillbeexposed,cutbytheROVand recoveredbya lift line, thus reducing theamountof systemcable removedandminimisingcableshipexcursionsfromthecableroute.Alternatively,theinitialcutmaybeperformedbyROVbeforethetwocableendsarerecoveredtodeckviagrapnels. Insomesituations,useofROVmayberestrictedtoinitialfaultlocationandidentificationofsuitablelocationstoconductrecoveryviagrapnelsonly.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page28of43


IndicativebasecaseproximitylimitsforROVs,andothersubseatoolscanbefoundinTCE’sEvidentiaryStudy.

GrapnelOperations

Grapplingremainsavaluablecablerecoverytechnique,especiallywhenmetoceanconditionsorcableburialprecludetheuseofROV.Thisactivitywillusuallyconsistofacuttingdriveatthe fault position followedbyholdingdrives to recover the two cableends.De-trenchinggrapnelunder-runningispotentiallyrequiredwhentherecoveryofcablesfromdeepburialwouldotherwisecreateexcessivetensionsonthecableduringrecovery.

Thedistancerequiredtoconductbothcuttingandholdinggrapneldrivesisbroadlysimilarandisafunctionofshiplength,grapnelriglengthandrun-on–aDOWdependentdistancedeemedappropriatetoensurethegrapnelshavesufficientopportunitytoengagethecable.Grapnel runs would preferably be conducted up any substantial seabed gradients andperpendicular to the cable route, hence they result in the cable ship making significantexcursionsfromthecablerouteasinFigure12below.

Figure12:Exampleofindicativedistancesrequiredwhenconductingtraditionalcable

recoverymethodswithgrapnelsin50mdepthofwater

Thesizeofexcursionshown inFigure12fromthecableroutemaybereducedbyusingashortenedgrapnelriglayback,conductingoperationswiththevesseldirectionparalleltothecablelineorbymakingoptimaluseofconditions(furtherdetailsrelatingtosuchascenarioareprovidedbyTheCrownEstate(2012)(refertoTable0-4ofthatStudy)).However,thenormal scenario above should be allowed for when discussing proximity and, as grapneloperationsrequiremoresea-roomthanROVcablerecoverymethods,theuseofgrapnelsisakeyconsiderationforthisguideline.

Table1isofferedasaguidelinesetofbasecaseoperationaldistancesforgrapneloperations.It is acknowledged however that final proximity limits for a given repair scenariowill be

IN CONFIDENCE



Page29of43


dependent on a large number of variables that combine to produce a unique set ofrequirementsforeachcablerepair.

Table1-Indicativereducedgrapneloperationdistances(TheCrownEstate,2012)

Thereduced laybackandrunondistancesprovidedbyTheCrownEstate(2012)aretobeconsideredas‘shortened’distancesandarederivedassumingthemostoptimumconditionsand a reduced grapnel layback. In practice, an allowance for differences in grappling rigarrangements, operational contingency (e.g. wind & tidal effects) and attention to theparticular circumstances of the case should bemade and the arguments expressed hereadjustedaccordingly.

13.3 CablerepairOnceacableendhasbeenrecoveredand“recovery”damageremoved,thesystemistestedtodeterminewhethertheendisfaultyorfaultfree.Iffaultythevesselwillproceedtoclearthefaultiflocaltotherepairvessel.Oncethecablehasbeencutbacksufficientlytoremovethe fault and has been tested successfully the cable shipwill buoy off the good end andrelocatetorecovertheothersideofthecable.

Thecableshipwillrepeattheprocessonthesecondenduntilitisstandingtoafaultfreeendandwill then splice toa lengthof repair “stock” cable.Once this splice is completedandtested,thecableshippaysoutthenew“stock”cablesection(dependinguponthepositionofthecableendsduringfaultlocation,thecableshipwillaimtoplacethecableontheoriginalcableline)layingouttothefirstcableendbuoy–includinganycrossingconstructionswhichmayberequiredoverinter-arrayorexportcables.

Whenthecableshipreachesthecablebuoyitwillrecoverthefirstend,testbothendsandperformthefinalsplice(seeFigure13below).

IN CONFIDENCE



Page30of43


Figure13:Therepairofacableisusuallynotdimensionedinrespectofproximitydistance

toawindfarmstructure

13.4 RepairbightdeploymentOncethefinalrepairjointiscompletethevesselwillmanoeuvretolaythefinalbight,asinFigure14over,and,ifpossible,theentirerepairfootprintwillbere-buriedusingtheROV.

It shouldbenoted that thephysical characteristicsof the repairbightaredictatedby thevariationsindesignandpurposeofthevesselinvolved.

Figure14:Exampleofindicativedistancesdisplacedoffthecablelinewhendeployinga

finalbighttotheseabedin50mdepthofwater

Thedisplacementofafinalbightcreatedbyacablerepairwillbeafunctionof:

IN CONFIDENCE



Page31of43


Ø waterdepth;Ø thephysicalcharacteristicsofthecable,particularlybendradius

andcatenary;Ø deck length, jointing space layout and freeboard of the cable

repairvessel;andØ prevailing weather conditions at the time of the laydown

operation.

Figure 15 illustrates the terms ‘water depth’, ‘freeboard’, ‘deck length’ and ‘repair bightcrown’.

Figure15:Termsrelatingtocablerepairbights

ThedeploymentofafinalbightislikelytobethekeydeterminantofthespacerequiredtoconductmaintenanceofasubmarinecableinthevicinityofanOWFdevelopment.Notonlyis it likelythattheoperationduringarepairrequiresthegreatestexcursionoffline,henceplacingthevesselclosertotheOWFthanatanyotherstageoftherepairoperation,ittakesplace when the cable ship is least manoeuvrable and most constrained in her ability torespondtoanylossofposition.Amethodtoreducetheriskoftheproximityoftheshipandthenearestwindturbinesistoplanthedeploymentofthefinalbightbetweenorawayfromtheturbines.Ifpracticable,theROVwillalsobeutilisedtoinspectandre-burythecablepostrepair. Attention is drawn to the differences in bight deployment techniques betweentelecomsandpowercables.Also,thedifferencesinpreparationandlayingoutofcableendsfor jointing are significant when comparing telecoms and power systems. As such, duerecognitionofeachshouldbefullyincorporatedinallproximityplanning.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page32of43


13.5 VesseldesignandcapabilityItisdemonstrablethatwithincreasingtechnicalreliabilityofpropulsionandcontrolsystems,themaincausesofDPstationkeeping incidentsarerelatedtohumanerror.WhiletheDPclassofaparticularvesselremainsrelevant,proceduralregimesandbehaviouralsafetyareconsideredtobeofsignificant importance indevelopingproximity limits forDPandotherself-propelledvessels.

DPClass1vesselsincommonusewithinthetelecommunicationscablerepairsector,providelowerlevelsofredundancyintheeventofasystemfailureorlossofposition.Providingproperoperatingcontrolsandproceduresarefollowed,however,theuseofDPClass1vesselsshouldnottranslateintomorestation-keepingincidentsthanforDPClass2vessels,providingsuchDPClass1vesselsareoperatedmoreconservativelyintermsofproximitydistances.

13.6 AnchoredoperationsAnanchoredbargemaybeusedforcableinstallationorrepairsinproximitytoawindfarmorconverselyforwindfarmworkinproximitytoanexistingcable.Theuseofjackupbargesfor wind farm construction or cable repair activities can also involve the deployment ofanchorstoaidpositioningpriortojackingoperations.

While the deployment of anchors represents an additional constraint when planningproximitylimits,thefactthatanchorlinescanspananexistingsubseacableallowsadegreeofflexibilityintheuseofanchorsinacongestedseabedarea.

Whileitisnotpossibletoprescribeminimumproximitylimitsforanchorsandwiresthatsuitallsituations,givenpropercontrols,somebasecaselimitsforanchoredoperationscanbefoundinTCE’sEvidentiaryStudy.

Theproximityanddirectionofanchorsshouldbegivenspecificconsiderationandproceduralprocessinthesiteproximityagreement.

13.7 SafetymanagementandcompetencyThe station keeping performance capability of any vessel is a combination of design,maintenancestandardsandoperationalcompetenceinthefaceofenvironmentalandsitespecificconditions.Thisguidelineconsidersthatcloseattentiontosafeoperatingpractices,competency assurance and behavioural based safety should be equally important as thetechnical reliability and performance of vessels and equipment when defining proximitylimits.

Whilstthesafeoperationofvesselsislegislatedatinternationalandnationallevels,therearearangeofapplicablesafetystandardsdependingonthesizeand/orpowerofaparticularvessel.Somevessels(particularlytowedbarges)falloutsidethemorestringentrequirementssuch as the International Safety Management (ISM) Code. It is recommended that the

IN CONFIDENCE



Page33of43


principlesoftheISMCodebeappliedtoproximatevesseloperationsirrespectiveofvesselsize,powerorclass.

13.8 OperationswithinaNotificationAreaTypical crossing and proximity agreements generally prescribe additional safety controlswithinadefinedareaaroundafixedorfloatingstructureinordertomanagetheadditionalsafetyhazardspresent.A‘NotificationArea’aroundstructuresisoftenadoptedwherevesselentrywould activate these additional requirements specified in the crossing or proximityagreement. It is recommended that thedefinitionof such a notification areabe includedwithintheproximityagreementwithinwhichaheightenedlevelofoperationalreadinessandsafetyawarenessbeactivated.

13.9 TheroleoftheMasterIncommonwithconventionalmaritimelawandpractice,theship’sMasterhasoveralllegalresponsibilityforthesafetyofhisvessel,thepersonnelon-board,andtheprotectionoftheenvironment.Itisrecommendedthatthisisproperlyacknowledgedinthedevelopmentandspiritoftheproximityguidelinesandthatnothingcontainedthereinshoulddetractfromthisultimateresponsibilityforthesafeconductofoperations.

Itshouldbenoted,theprerogativeofthevessel’sMasterwillplayasignificantpartintheactual executionof theworks that aredefinedwithinanyproximity agreementand in allvesseloperationsdiscussedtherein.Thisguidelineconsidersitimperativethatmaintenancesuppliers and theirmarine personnel (of both parties) be engaged in both the proximityagreementformulationandanyrepairoperationplanning.

14 ANNEXBSTAKEHOLDERCONSULTATIONThisAnnexdescribesatypicaloffshorewinddevelopmentprogrammeandthesequenceofhighlevelactivitiesandproposedstakeholderinteractionsduringthevariousprojectphases.The TWGacknowledges that someOWFdevelopersmay choose to progress furtherwithproximityagreements,priortoconsentapplication,thansuggestedbelow.However,Figure16below, and theexplanatory text, provides someguidanceon the suggested timingsofinteractionsbetweenanOWFdeveloperandsubseacableoperator.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page34of43


Figure16:Suggestedstakeholderconsultationduringdevelopmentandconstructionofan

offshorewindfarmproject

14.1 DevelopmentandconsentingphaseThe UK processing model for offshore wind farms can take more than 5 years fromidentificationofadevelopmentzonethroughtocommencingconstruction.Developershaveanumberofstagestocompletebeforegainingplanningconsent.Owingtothenatureoftheplanningsystemforoffshorerenewableenergyprojects,detailedandeffectiveengagementis required with all stakeholders during this time and the developermust report on thisconsultationandontheway inwhichstakeholderconcernshavebeentaken intoaccountwithin their consent application. To assist in this process, The Crown Estate maintains a‘phonebook’listingallappropriatecontacts.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page35of43


The first liaison activities between the developer and the involved stakeholders shouldincludeadviceonintent,processandtimescalesofthedevelopment.

Communication should include the issue of charts providing details of the site underdevelopment.Wherepossible, this couldalsobeprovided ina suitableGIS format. Oncecommunicationshavestarted,follow-upcommunicationshouldcontinueonaregularbasis–perhapstwiceayear(althoughthisshouldbeagreedonacase-by-casebasis,dependingonthepotentialnatureoftheinteractionbetweenparties).

Onceaproject(orzonedevelopmentplan)isbetterdefined,one-to-onemeetingswiththeaffectedstakeholdersshouldcommence.Thekeyaimofthesemeetingsshouldbetodiscussproximityissuesandthepotentialrequirementsforcablecrossings.UnderthePlanningActa developer must demonstrate a suitable level of consultation and engagement with aproject’sstakeholders.Asaresultitwouldalsobebeneficialtodiscusstheoverallnatureoftheprincipleswhichwillneedtobeestablishedbetweenthetwopartieswhencomingtoproximityorcrossingagreements.

Itshouldbenotedthatevenatthepointofconsentapplication,thewindfarmdevelopermaynotknowtheexactlayoutoftheoffshorewindfarm.Windfarmsareusuallyconsentedona‘projectenvelope’basis,knownasaRochdaleEnvelope,whichallowsforavarietyofpotentialoptions in technology, layouts, project size, etc., to be built out. Importantly for thisdocument,thelayoutsareonlylikelytobeconfirmedpost-consent.Whilstsomedeveloperswillbehappytosignuptocertaindistancesonwhichaproximityagreementcanbereachedbeforeconsent,itmaynotbepossibletosignfullproximityandcrossingagreementsbeforethesubmissionofaconsentapplicationifdeveloperscannotprovidethislevelofcertainty.Itisthereforeanticipatedthatwheredeveloperscannotsignuptocertainconstraintsbeforeconsentapplicationandhencewheretherearepotentialconflictsbetweenacableandanoffshorewindfarmproposal (andwherethere isapossibilitythatthecableoperatormayobjecttotheIPC/MarineScotlandasaresultoftheconflict)theaffectedpartiesmaylooktodevelopatwo-stageagreement.Thesuggestedstagesforthisaredetailedbelowbutmayneedtobeadaptedtomeettheneedsofindividualdevelopersandtheirstakeholders.

Whilstanoffshorewindfarmdeveloper,inthisinstance,wouldnotbeabletoprovidefinaldetailsofaprojectlayoutpreapplication,itissuggestedthatpartiesconsiderenteringahighlevel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) before a developer submits a consentapplicationtoavoidtheneedforanyobjectiontoanapplication.The levelof informationwithinthisMOUwouldbelargelydependentonthedesiredlevelofagreement,pre-consent,oftheOWFdeveloperandcableowner.ItissuggestedthatsuchahighlevelMOUwouldlooktoestablishtheprinciplesonwhichaproximityagreementwouldbereachedfortheprojectinquestionandwouldintendtofocusthepartiesontheprincipleslaidoutwithinit.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page36of43


SuchahighlevelMOUmaylooktoidentifyminimumproximitywithoutanycompromisetomaintenanceoperationsonthetelecomsoperator’spartaswellas,forexample,suggestingsuitablemitigationmeasuresthatcouldbeadoptedshouldproximitybereducedinanumberof increments. This may present numerous scenarios on which the offshore wind farmdevelopercouldbaseadesignwhenfinalisingthewindfarmdesigndependingonthefinalprojectparameters,henceretainingtheflexibilitycontainedwithintheRochdaleEnvelope.

ItisrecognisedhoweverthatanMOUmaynotbeapplicableorappropriateforalldevelopersandhenceitissuggestedhereasoneoptiontoeaseconcernsofbothparties.Adeveloper(orexistingcableowner)mayprefertotakeanotherapproachaspartofongoingconsultationontheproximityagreement.

During the discussions on a high levelMOU, the partiesmay agree to undertake certainimpactassessmentanalysesandtechnicalstudies,ifrequired,todeterminethelevelofriskimposedandallowaninformeddiscussionofpotentialmitigations.

Ifconsideredappropriate,ahighlevelMOUwouldbeputinplacebetweenthedeveloperandtheaffectedpartyaspartoftheconsultationprocess.Inthiscase,itwouldprovidetheoffshorewind farmdeveloper and affectedpartywith the reassurance that a projectwillproceedonthepreviouslyagreedtermsandhencewillavoidpotentialfurtherdisputeatalaterstage.

Inthisscenario,thesecondstageoftheproximityagreementwouldoccurpost-consentandoncethelayouthasbeenapproved,wheredetailedagreementsbetweencableoperatorsandoffshorewinddevelopersarefinalisedandagreed(asdiscussedfurtherinAnnexB.3).

14.2 Pre-constructionphase

Onceconsentisgrantedbytherelevantauthority,thedeveloperwillstartnarrowingdowndesign options for the offshore wind farm through detailed design, tendering andprocurementprocesses(althoughsomedevelopersmaybeginthisprocessduringapplicationdetermination).Duringthisperiodoftime(typicallyapproximately2years),thedevelopershould continue toengagewith the cableownersandestablishmore firmproximity (andcrossing)agreements in linewith thepreviouslyagreedprinciples laidoutwithin thehighlevelMOUoranyotherapplicabledocuments.Thesewouldbebasedontheestablishedwindfarmlayout,electricalinfrastructure,etc.

Dependingonthenatureoftheoffshorewindfarmconsent,theremayalsobearequirementtodemonstratetotheregulatorthataproximityagreementhasbeenreached.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page37of43


14.3 Constructionphase

Once the financial investment decision is taken by the developer’s board(s) and offshoreconstruction is mobilised, there will be certain precautions to be taken in respect ofconstruction operations near offshore cables. This is detailed in the method statementforminganintegralpartofanyproximityagreement.

Representatives of installation and/or maintenance contractors should be involved inoperational discussions as early as possible, as necessary. This is to enable agreement ofworkingarrangementsforinstallation,repairandmaintenanceoftheparties’facilitieswithintheboundsoftheproximity(andcrossing)agreement.

Notificationfordefinedactivitiesshouldbeprovidedasagreedonacasebycasebasis.Anexampleofanotificationtimelinecouldbeatcountdownintervalsof3months,1month,1week, 48 hours, 24 hours prior to construction commencement and upon completion ofoperations. Any alterations to the Method Of Procedure (MOP) during construction willrequirefurtherdiscussionandflexibilityintheproximityagreement.

14.4 OperationandmaintenancephaseFollowingconstruction,thecoordinatesandnecessarychartinginformationshallbesuppliedtoallpartiesassoonaspracticaltoenablethemtoupdatetheirdatabases.Theobligationistoprovideas-builtdataworksforallparties.Thewindfarmoperatorshouldprovideas-builtdataandas-laidcoordinatesofallinfrastructure.Submarinecableoperatorsshouldprovidearevisedroutepositionlistafteracablehasbeenliftedforrepairor installationofanewcable.

Duringtheoperationandmaintenancephasetherewillbenewissuesinrespectofmarinecoordination, issues duringmajor overhauls, etc., and theremight be options for sharedmaintenanceservices.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page38of43


15 ANNEXC–CHECKLISTFORISSUESTOBECONSIDEREDINASITESPECIFICRISKASSESSMENT

This Annex provides a check list of the key issues (‘External / Internal Influences’) forconsiderationinasitespecificriskassessment. Itmaybeappropriatetoconsidertheseaspartofasuggestedagendafordiscussionbetweenthekeystakeholders.

Figure17–TheExternalandInternalInfluencestobeconsideredindeterminingsite

specificproximitylimits

15.1 ExternalinfluencesThefollowingisanaide-memoireofthekeyareasof‘ExternalInfluences’(i.e.issueswherenone of the affected parties can have an impact on the condition) for consideration inreachingsuccessfulproximityagreements.Itisnotintendedtobeanexhaustivelistofitemstobeincludedbyprescription.

Physicalenvironment/metoceanconditions

Ø Historicalmetoceandata;Ø Benthicconditions;Ø Depthofwater.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page39of43


Existinginfrastructure

Ø Availabilityofaccuratesurveydata;Ø Existing subsea plant information (burial / protection) and

specification;Ø Other seabed users / stakeholders and proximate

developments;Ø Cablecrossingsandanyrequiredburial/protection(mattresses,

rocketc.);Ø Proximityofsurroundinginfrastructurefoundations/turbines/

substations.

Plannedinfrastructure

Ø Planned location and potential layout scenarios, includingcrossings.

Legislative/regulatoryconstraints

Ø UNCLOSandotherregulatoryconstraints;Ø HSEregulations;Ø Localrulesandregulations;Ø Other permit applications lodged during development of a

proximityagreement.

Commercialconstraints

Ø IsahighlevelMOUbetweenthepartiesinplace?;Ø Impact on contractual performance requirements of cable

owner’scustomers/marineprovider;Ø ReductioninOWFdeveloper’spowergeneration.

Otherseabedusers

Whensubmarinecablesarelocatedincloseproximitytooffshorewindfarmdevelopmentsandotherstakeholders(suchasoil&gas,shipping,aggregateextraction,marineprotectedareas, etc.), the developer should consider the cumulative impact of all the sectors’requirements.Thisshouldensureeachstakeholdercancontinuetheirlegitimateactivitiesina safe and timely manner. Where impacts are identified, they should be quantified andassessed, and all legitimate concerns addressed. Where multiple developments /stakeholders are identified, the Working Zone agreed between stakeholders using thisguidelinemayvaryonacasebycasebasis.

15.2 InternalinfluencesIn addition to the External Influencesoutlined above, a rangeof ‘Internal Influences’ (i.e.issuesthatareinsomekindofcontrolbyatleastoneoftheaffectedparties)shouldalsobetakenintoconsiderationwhendiscussingarisk-basedassessmentofappropriateproximitylimits. Again, the list is not intended tobe exhaustiveor prescriptivebut shouldpromptevaluationofthemostusefulandrelevantissuesforconsideration.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page40of43


Also,theseinternalinfluencesshouldbepartoftheagendafordiscussionbetweenthekeystakeholdersandmayeventuallybeelementsofthemethodstatementstobedevelopedandagreedthroughthedialogue.

Vessel/Equipmentselectionoravailability

Ø Differingvesseltypes,capabilitiesandoperatingfootprints;Ø Vesselandpositioningcapability;Ø Weatherforecastandrelateddecisionprocess;Ø Impactofvessellosingposition;Ø Vessels required to undertake remedial works – multi-vessel

simultaneousoperations;Ø Position reference systems and the impact of surrounding

structures;Ø Deckandcablehandlingarrangements;Ø ROV/LARSspecandcapability;Ø Methodology, operational procedures and techniques

employed;Ø Availablesparecable/plant.

Operationalenvironment

Ø Proximityagreementboundary;Ø Pre-existingjackupzonesandcable-freeareas;Ø Anchorspreadrequirementsformulti-pointmooringsystems;Ø Cableprotection;Ø Post-laysurveysandthetransmitting/sharingofdata;Ø Howarepairaffectsfutureinteractionandworks;Ø The requirement for powering down part of a system during

works.

Manninglevels

Ø Competence and experience adequate tomeet the additionaldemandsofthecircumstance;

Ø Additional manning requirements, e.g. DPOs, watch keepers,proximate party reps, operational personnel to expedite therepair,etc.

Personnelcompetency

Ø Ensurethatrelevantcrosssectorexpertiseisengaged;Ø Health,SafetyandEnvironmentalconsiderations;Ø Experience in proximate / close quarters / simultaneous

operations.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page41of43


15.3 ApplicationofALARPWhatisALARP?

TheALARP level should not bemisunderstood as simply being a quantitativemeasure ofbenefit against detriment. ALARP is reached when the time, trouble and cost of furtherreductionmeasures,becomeuneconomicorunacceptablewithrespecttotheadditionalriskreductionobtained.

In order to come to an agreement between the involved parties it will be necessary todeterminethelevelofriskALARPlevelwhichisacceptabletoeachstakeholder.Thiswillbesitespecificandtheappetiteforriskislikelytovary.

Whilstaccountshouldbegiventopotentialworstcasescenarios,theseshouldnotbeusedas the basis for discussions between the parties if they cannot also be considered likely.Limitingdiscussionstoworstcasescenariosor,forinstance,asingle20year+event,islikelytoleadtodisagreementswhereneitherpartycanbesatisfiedormaypotentiallypreventanagreementbeingreachedatall.Whereverpossible,theassessmentofriskshould include,butnotbelimitedto:

Ø Any historic data available on reliability or damage for theexistinginfrastructureorinstalledsimilarexampleselsewhere;

Ø Likelyreturnratesofperiodsofpoorweatherwhichmay,undertheplannedinteraction,prejudicerepairswhencomparedtothebaselinecurrentsituation;

Ø Likelihoodofinabilitytomaintaincontrolofthevessel;andØ Completionofsufficientduediligencetoensurethatallparties

to the agreement are considered competent to meet therequirementsoftheproximityagreement.

Considerationoftheacceptableriskswillthenallowinformeddiscussionsonthepotentialmitigations that may be available to reduce the risk caused by a new development andthereforereachanacceptableALARPlevel.

ConsiderthefollowingProbability–ImpacttableandRiskSeverityAnalysisexamplewhendeterminingandmitigatingtotheALARP(YELLOW)level(s).Note,theriskseverityindexcanbecalculatedsimplyasProbabilityxHighestImpact,thesolutionbeinginsertedwithintheP-ItableintheGreen(Tolerable),Yellow(ALARP)orRed(Intolerable)areas.

IN CONFIDENCE



Page42of43


Thismightbeviewed inaProbability / Impact (P-I) severity tableasoutlined inFigure18below.

HighestImpactofRiskEvent

Figure18:ProbabilityImpacttableandassociatedALARPlevels

A risk analysis taking into consideration all site-specific External Influences and InternalInfluencesshouldbecarriedoutduringdiscussionsonproximityagreements.ThebasecaseproximitydistancetablesprovidedintheEvidentiaryStudyappliedintelligentlyprovideusefultoolsintheriskassessmentofthevariousscenarios.

Suchanassessmentcouldincludebutnotbelimitedto:

Ø Risk/likelihoodofdamagetoexisting/proposedinfrastructureinthe area of the interaction including potential for change toanticipatedfaultratesduetotheplannednewinfrastructure;

Ø Risk/likelihood that a faultmayoccurduring aperiodofpoorweatherwhichwouldleadtheMasterofthevesseltodelayorsuspendoperationsdueto theproximityofanOWFalone (asopposedtotheweatherbeingunworkableinanysituation);

Ø Acceptable level of downtime of any infrastructure undernormalcircumstancesanditsstrategicimportance;

Ø LossofpotentialrevenueforanyOWFoperatorasaresultoflossofavailableacreageandimpactontheprojectasawhole;

Ø Cost of alternative options, such as, re-routeing a new cablearoundasopposedtothroughanexistingOWFandimpactontheprojectasawhole.

esca guideline no

Documents