210- 
II, 18gUBS IN THE CONSIDERATION oF THE OFFSHORE CONCEPT! 
Two recent aundiea! conducted at’ the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology have provided a preliminary analysis (32) and’ ‘an’ in- 
depth followup investigation (33) of the major technological, economic, 
political, and legal trade-off variables that must’ be considered in an: 
analysis of the offshore concept. The results of these studies are in 
general agreement with previous investigations in the conclusion’ 
that a number of offshore designs are well within the limits of present 
technological capabilities: 
These reports examine some of the general winsliedations that would 
go into the design of offshore power’ installations, imcluding fixed: 
and floating structures, as well as some areas in need of special at- 
tention due to the differences between a land and a water environ- 
ment in connection with a large-scale power facility. ‘The treatment 
has led to the identification of a number of major trade-off issues that 
must be assessed in the choice among alternative schemes and their 
affect on costs. These include: 
(1) The degree of seismic protection required. 
(2) The suitability of various mooring schemes and their 
ability to withstand the forces of maximum storm conditions for 
a large number of years. 
(8) The minimization of ecological stress on local sea life and 
on coastal ecosystems to within allowable margins (a function 
of oceanographic conditions and constraints imposed by the 
institutional environment). 
(4) The protection against collision with air and sea vehicles. 
(5) The effect of tidal movement and tsunami (tidal wave 
triggered by a remote earthquake). 
(6) The establishment of a thermocline to prevent mixing cold 
influent with hot effluent—constraint on depth of water. | 
(7) The limitations on draft of floating structures imposed by 
the depth of harbors providing shipyard access. 
(8) The suitability for use with undersea or tower pee 
lines (cost is the major variable). 
(9) Ease’ of’ access for personnel and suitability for heavy 
maintenance. 
(10) Radiation containment, and radionuclide waste dis- 
persal during normal and accident conditions must conform to 
AEC standards. 
(11) The adaptability of various offshore structures to satis 
yard construction without incurring prohibitive costs. 
(12) The susceptibility of the plant to sinking and loss of access, 
and how this might interact with design features such as use of 
soluble poison control. 
(13) Effect of winter icing on plant operations. 
(14) Coupling to onshore transmission facilities and suitability 
for clustering to reduce costs: that is, how far apart should 
multiple plants be? 
(15) Refueling and maintenance schemes adopted: need for 
barge or truck access and so forth . 
(16) Legal and political considerations, such as the 3-mile 
limit, jurisdiction of Federal, State, and local governments, 
applicability of recent environmental legislation, national security, 
and so forth. 
