DOE/RL-97-56
|
DOE/RL-97-56 |
Selection Process
As previously noted, the classification matrix was designed to identify and combine properties which shared functional and operational characteristics. In effect, the classification criteria recognized and maximized the redundancy built into the Hanford industrial complex. Having determined which properties conveyed the Hanford Site's "sense of time and place and historical development" (NPS 1991, p. 5), the Task Group then sought to identify those specific properties whose documentation and mitigation would account for all the variation present on the Hanford Site. To this end, the Task Group employed additional filtering mechanisms to advance this selection process. The concept of "representative example" was brought into play. This concept is generally applied in a mitigative context. Through it the Task Group identified those properties that best represented the unique history and missions of the Hanford Site.
The selection criteria were as follows:
Criteria 1 through 4 focused on associations, events, history, and themes. The Task Group generated a series of questions to be asked of each property as it was rated against these criteria.
Is the building associated with an important event at the Hanford Site marking an important moment in American history (for example, first atomic bomb)? Is it the only building associated with this event? If other buildings demonstrate this association, is this building the most representative example?
Is the building associated with a pattern of events (for example, World War II or the Cold War) or historic trends (for example, development of nuclear production technology or radiation protection technology) that are significant to the development of the Hanford Site, the locality, region, state, or nation? Is it the only building associated with this pattern of events or trends? Does this building mark a key point in the pattern or trend? If other buildings demonstrate this association, is this building the most representative example?
Is the building associated with a person's productive life who was significant in Hanford, local, regional, state, or national history (for example, Gen. Groves, Col. Matthias, Herbert Parker)? Is it the only building associated with this person? If other buildings demonstrate this association, is this building the most representative example?
Is this building associated with a theme characterizing the history or mission of the Hanford Site? Is it the only building associated with this theme? If other buildings demonstrate this association, is this building the most representative example?
Criterion 5 focused on architectural design and engineering achievements. Does the building demonstrate unique or innovative architectural designs or methods of construction? Is it the only building demonstrating these designs or methods? If the design or method is demonstrated by another building, is this building the most representative example?
Do the engineering/technological facilities within the building embody the distinctive characteristics of a unique or innovative process or scientific achievement (for example, a new nuclear fuel manufacturing process, a new reactor arrangement, a new chemical separation process, a new radiation monitoring device) at the Hanford Site? Is this the only building containing these facilities? If the facilities are present within other buildings, is this building the most representative example?
Criterion 6 looked at the physical integrity of the building. Does the building have structural integrity? How intact is the building interior? If exterior or interior modifications have occurred, did they incorporate or obliterate earlier designs?
Criterion 7 sought to ensure that representative examples from all time periods were selected. When was the building constructed? What changes, if any, occurred in the building's functional role? When?
Criterion 8 examined the building's information potential as well as the status of existing documentation. Has the building yielded, or is it likely to yield, information important in history? Is this unique information? Is this information represented elsewhere on site? Is this building the most representative example of this information?
What documentation already exists for the building? How detailed is the existing information? Is it available (in other words, declassified)? Where is it located?
Criterion 9 provided information on how buildings might be utilized in the post-Hanford era. Could this building serve an educational or interpretive function? Could the building support economic development initiatives within the Tri-Cities?
Criterion 10 considered the effects of contamination within the building on the potential to gain access for documentation and/or future use. Was the building contaminated or non-contaminated? If contaminated, where was the contamination? Could the area or building be decontaminated?
The selection criteria were applied somewhat hierarchically. Criteria 1 through 5 largely determined which contributing buildings would continue through the selection process based on associations, events, history, architecture, and technology. Criteria 6 through 8 further refined the selections. This second level cut, based on ensuring a representative sample containing properties portraying all operational ages, selected for properties possessing physical integrity and high information potential. All other things being equal, Criteria 9 and 10 selected for clean properties with future use potential.
It should be noted that these criteria served as guidelines, not restrictions. For example, because a representative sample was required, both liquid (241-T) and solid waste (218-WR) features were selected even though they are highly contaminated. Similarly, the 105-B Reactor as well as the 1705-N Electrical Maintenance Shop were selected to demonstrate the range of operations present within the Hanford industrial complex.
Utilizing these criteria, the Task Group selected those properties which, in their combined judgement, best represented or exemplified the buildings classified within each analytic unit defined by the matrix. These 187 properties (Table A.5 in Appendix A) will serve as focal points in documenting and mitigating the Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Cold War Era Historic District. Included within this sample are 65 buildings which captured the technological and scientific core of the Hanford Site. The additional 122 properties incorporated themes relating to construction history and worker history as well as science and technology.
A listing of the contributing properties not selected for individual treatment (see Table A.6 in Appendix A) and those properties which were found to be non-contributing or exempt (see Table A.7 in Appendix A) are provided to document these decisions.
Reactor Operations: An Example
An example of how the selection process was applied is demonstrated by the process used to select the reactors to be mitigated. The Hanford reactors may be classified as follows:
Test Reactors:
Building 305 Test Pile, 1943 Building 305-B Physical Constants Test Reactor (PCTR), 1952/Thermal Test Reactor (TTR), 1954 Building 309 Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR), 1960 Building 318 High Temperature Lattice Test Reactor (HTLTR), 1967
Graphite Core, Positive Coefficient, Single Pass Water Cooled Reactors:
105-B Reactor First Full-Scale Reactor, 1944 105-D, 105-F Identical to 105-B, 1944 and 1945 105-H, 105-DR, 105-C Similar design to existing Reactors but higher operating power level, 1949, 1950, and 1952 105-KE, 105-KW Similar design to existing Reactors but physically larger with increased operating power level, 1955
Graphite Core, Negative Coefficient, Dual-Purpose, Recirculating Water Cooled Reactor:
105-N Unique design, unlike existing Reactors, 1963
Liquid Sodium Cooled, Low Pressure, High Temperature, Fast Neutron Flux, Breeder Reactor:
Building 405 Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), 1980 - Unique design, unlike existing Reactors; irradiation testing of breeder reactor fuels and materials
The Task Group considered the Reactors as points along a continuum of technological improvement. The time line ran from 1942 to 1980. Applying the selection process presented above, the 305, 305-B, 309, 318, 105-B, 105-KW, 105-N, and 405 Reactors were recommended as representative examples because they embodied major points in the development of reactor operations on the Hanford Site. The 305 Reactor was the first operational test pile on site. The 105-B was the world's first full-scale production reactor. Research conducted in the Test Reactors (305-B, 309, 318) allowed the safe operation of larger piles at higher temperatures (105-KW) and the development of a new reactor technology (405). The 105-N was the first dual-purpose reactor operated within the United States.