New Underground Laboratories in North America

1. New Underground Laboratories in North America Steve Elliott Los Alamos National Laboratory

2. And the Winner is: NUSEL at Homestake Well maybe…. I prepared this talk after the NSF decision to choose Homestake and before Barrick turned off the pumps on June 10. Steve Elliott

3. Outline • Making the case for Science Underground • Existing North American Facilities • NUSEL at Homestake I wish to thank Tom Bowles and John Wilkerson for their input to this presentation. Steve Elliott

4. A Remarkably Wide Range of Science andEngineering Issues Can Be Addressed Underground • Neutrino Physics* • Particle Physics* • Astrophysics* • Geophysics+ • Geobiology+ • National Security* • Education and Outreach In order to fully exploit this potential requires the construction of a National Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (NUSEL) * Requires depth to eliminate radioactive backgrounds + Requires underground environment Steve Elliott

5. Why Underground? • Physics - measurements of extremely rare processes require shielding from the incessant cosmic ray flux incident at the earth’s surface. • Earthscience - extreme conditions found only underground (temp, pressure, chemistry, genomic isolation); outstanding geophysics questions. Steve Elliott

6. Underground Research has had Great Success • The field has made recent fundamental discoveries. • These discoveries broadly impact physics, astronomy, cosmology. • A new laboratory would build on this success and open up the potential for next generation experiments and future discoveries. Steve Elliott

7. Some Recent Successes. Steve Elliott

8. Underground Research has Produced Numerous Dramatic Results. Steve Elliott

9. Why a New Lab and Why inNorth America? • The science is compelling. • There is a lack of deep sites for next generation expts. Background requirements have typically increased by a factor of 100-1000 since Gran Sasso and Kamioka were built 20 years ago. • dark matter: ~4500 mwe • double beta decay: 2400 - 6000 mwe • solar neutrinos: ~6000 mwe • EarthLab: 7400 mwe • There is a lack of space in existing laboratories • The lack of a US laboratory has inhibited the development of underground science within the US. • NUSEL will encourage synergies that will advance science. Steve Elliott

10. Making the Science Case for NUSEL • Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) Long Range Plan 2000 - 2001 • Committee on an Underground Scientific Laboratory2000 - 2001 (Community committee, NSF & DOE, Chair: Bahcall) • HEPAP Sub-panel on Long Range Planning2000-2001 • NRC Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU)2000-2002, Chair: Turner • NRC - Neutrino Facilities Assessment Committee March - December 2002, Chair: Barish • Orbach DOE 20-year Major Projects(NSAC and HEPAP sub-committees) Winter 2003 Steve Elliott

11. Nuclear Science Advisory CommitteeLong Range Plan, March 2001 Recommendation #3 “We strongly recommend immediate construction of the world's deepest underground science laboratory. This laboratory will provide a compelling opportunity for nuclear scientists to explore fundamental questions in neutrino physics and astrophysics.” “Recent evidence for neutrino mass has led to new insights into the fundamental nature of matter and energy. Future discoveries about the properties of neutrinos will have significant implications for our understanding of the structure of the universe. An outstanding new opportunity to create the world's deepest underground laboratory has emerged. This facility will position the U.S. nuclear science community to lead the next generation of solar neutrino and double beta-decay experiments.” Steve Elliott

12. Connecting Quarks to the Cosmos Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU), April 2002 • A two year NRC study. Chair: Michael Turner, Univ of Chicago • Identify science opportunities at the INTERSECTION (not union) of physics and astronomy. • Recommend a strategy for achieving these opportunities. • Recommendation (one of only 3 new initiatives) • “Determine the neutrino masses, the constituents of the dark matter and the lifetime of the proton. The Committee recommends that DOE and NSF work together to plan for and to fund a new generation of experiments to achieve these goals. We further recommend that an underground laboratory with sufficient infrastructure and depth be built to house and operate the needed experiments.” Steve Elliott

13. Neutrinos and Beyond: New Windows on NatureNeutrino Facilities Assessment Committee, Dec. 2002 • NRC study requested March 2002 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Chair: Barry Barish, Caltech • Identify the major science problems that could be addressed by cubic- • kilometer-class neutrino observatories; • Identify the major science problems that could be addressed with a deep underground science laboratory; and • Assess the scientific importance of the identified science and whether it could be addressed by other existing, soon-to-be-completed, or planned facilities. • Assessment • “A deep underground laboratory can house a new generation of experiments that will advance our understanding of the fundamental properties of neutrinos and the forces that govern the elementary particles, as well as shedding light on the nature of the dark matter that holds the Universe together. Recent discoveries about neutrinos, new ideas and technologies, and the scientific leadership that exists in the U.S. make the time ripe to build such a unique facility.” Steve Elliott

14. Neutrinos and Dark Matter • Atmospheric ns • Dark Matter • Double b Decay • Nucleon Decay • Solar Neutrinos • Supernova ns • Long & Very Long Baseline n Oscillation Expts. Steve Elliott

15. Neutrino Properties • What We Know • Neutrinos have mass and oscillate • Parameters (Dm2 and tan2q) known but imprecisely • Neutrino masses are small • 50 meV < mn < 2.2 eV • Neutrinos account for at least as much mass in the Universe • as the visible stars • What We Don’t Know • Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? (Majorana n) • What is the absolute scale for neutrino mass? • Is the mass scale normal ordered or inverted hierarchy? • Are there sterile neutrinos? • What are the elements of the MNSP mixing matrix? • Is CP / CPT violated in the neutrino sector? • Why is the neutrino sector so different than the quark sector? Steve Elliott

16. Depth Issues at NUSEL Experiment Requirements • Ultra-low level experiments • bb decay, dark matter, reactor/SN/solar n • Great depth, modest to large size • High-energy experiments • Proton decay, long-baseline, atmospheric n • Moderate depth, large size • Geophysics / Geomicrobiology • 3-D from surface to great depth • Heterogeneous, DT, H2O • National Security • Modest depth, small size • Ultra low-level counting facility • Great depth, moderate size for R&D on n experiments Nuclear Physics Steve Elliott

17. Why Deep? Many next generation experiments must be deep to achieve their ultimate sensitivity • SNO wouldn’t have worked at Gran Sasso or Kamioka because of cosmogenic bkgs. SNO concern relevant to DM --potential neutron backgrounds with no accompanying muon signal • n’s from Atm. n NC reaction • n’s from m induced photonuclear production in rock • n’s from m DIS in rock Steve Elliott

18. Existing North American UG Labs Soudan(2100 mwe) Sudbury(6010 mwe) WIPP (1700 mwe) Steve Elliott

19. WIPP • DOE Facility • Impressiveinfrastructure • Modest depth(1600 mwe) • Science asadd-on toprimary mission • Low backgroundcounting labbeing developedLANL-PNNL Steve Elliott

20. Experimental Operations OMNISita supernova Experiment EXO bb Project Majorana bb R&D Lab Steve Elliott

21. UG at WIPP Steve Elliott

22. Soudan Steve Elliott

23. UG at Soudan (MINOS construction) Steve Elliott

24. New Hall (2005) Existing SNO Cavity Sudbury Neutrino Observatory • INCO (commercial)Ni mine • Restricted shaft size • Deep (6010 mwe) Steve Elliott

25. Comparison of Underground Labs Steve Elliott

26. Proposed North American Deep UG Labs Soudan 7400 mwe Homestake7400 mwe San Jancinto 6000 mwe Steve Elliott

27. Distance to American Accelerator Labs Want 2000-3000 km Baseline. kilometers FNAL BNL One needs a large detector for VLBL experiments. The new SNOLab space isn’t large enough for something UNO-like. Steve Elliott

28. The “Also Rans”? Soudan Expansion Marshak et al., Univ. of Minn. San Jacinto, Palm Springs, CA Sobel et al., UC -Irvine Steve Elliott

29. SNOLab: SNO Extension is FUNDED Nuclear Physics Steve Elliott

30. NUSEL - Homestake (proposed) • Deepest mine in US, existing shafts &drifts from 150’- 8000’, at 150’ intervals. • Dual access all levels. • Well characterized and understoodrock dynamics. • Has been deactivated formining. • Extensive infrastructure. • Allows one to simultaneouslyand immediately pursue an operational science program and laboratory construction • Meets all key “Ideal” UGlab requirements. Haxton et al., Univ. of Washington Steve Elliott

31. MegaDet 8000’ EarthLab Homestake (cross-section) Yates Shaft and Complex Mining and Operations Ross Shaft and Complex Science Operations Oro Hondo Exhaust Ellison Exhaust No.5 Shaft Air Intake No. 3 Shaft No. 4 Shaft No. 6 Shaft Service Shaft 4850’ 6200’ No. 7 Shaft 4850’Labs 6800’ 7400’ 8000’ 7400’Labs Not to scale Steve Elliott

32. Homestake Flooding Homestake is a proto-typical Laboratory site. I’ll describe its specifics, keeping in mind that its features define a great site. Steve Elliott

33. Homestake Science Access 8.44 m Ross Shaft access to 5000’ level • Capacity 7 tons • 1.5 m x 4m x 2.5 m • Timbered, requireswater lubrication Winze No. 6 access to 4850’ - 8000’ level South Cage 11’ x 12 ‘ North Cage 4.66 m High Speed lift South Skip North Skip • Proposed • Modernize hoists • Refurbish both shafts • Capacity 8 tons routine • 3.3 m x 3.6 m x 6 m • High speed personnel “auto-lift” Steve Elliott

34. 7400’ Science Level Access via Ross and Winze #6. • Centralized utilities • Clean lab conditions • Rn removal (1 Bq/m3) • Isolated separate exhaustsystem • Ultra low-level backgroundlaboratory • General purpose hall andsmaller dedicated labs. • Ability to expand and buildfuture custom cavities High Speed lift South Skip Example 7400’ layout Steve Elliott

35. Ultra Low Background Counting Facility Envisioned laboratory (Hamer, Bowles LANL) Level 3 • State of the art a, b, g, and Rn counting • Provide central infrastructure • Novel, high-sensitivity counters Level 1 Steve Elliott

36. The Homestake Site • Dedicated operation of a deep u/g science laboratory • Location appropriate for long-baseline experiments • 600 km of existing drifts down to great depths (8000’) • Extremely strong rock • Ability to excavate large chambers at depth • Minimal risk in excavation (109 yrs of experience) • A tremendous amount of existing infrastructure • 15 MVA of power substations, 860,000 cfm HVAC, … • Large hoisting capabilities • Ability to take sea-containers directly u/g • Ability to excavate UNO-size cavity in 2-3 years • Complex geology throughout site • Provides ideal conditions for geoscience / geomicrobiology Steve Elliott

37. Many Steps Forward….. WIPP Meeting: June 2000 DNP town meetings, Fall 2000 June 2003 - New schedule for flooding! Committee on Underground Science Laboratory High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, sub-panel on Long Range Plan NSAC LRP 2000-2001 Dec. 2001- Homestake Mining Corp. merges with Barrick. NSF selects Homestake as favored site - not a guarentee of funding. Quarks to Cosmos Report Neutrino Facilities Assessment Committee Report Nov. 2001- Interim funding bill passes Barrick has serious problems with final House version 2002 election politics in SD stall transfer negotiations. April 2003 - planned flooding averted Dec. 2001 - Federal indemnity bill passes WIPP 6/00 DNP Fall 2000 NSAC 2000-01 UG sci 2000-01 HEPAP 2000-01 Interim Funding 11/01 Indemnity Bill, 12/01 SD Elections stall Transfer negotiations Barrick Unhappy With Bill CPU 2000-02 NFAC 2002 Planned Flooding Averted 4/03 NSF Site decision 5/30/03 6/2/03 Barrick announces Flood Date of June 10 Steve Elliott

38. Consequences of Flooding • NSF site panel: "Important reasons to continue pumping include the maintenance of mine stability, avoidance of equipment replacement or damage, consistency with existing operating approvals, and preservation of the rock mass environment.” • Homestake Collaboration: “If the mine is flooded next week, we will submit our current Reference Design Project Book, the engineering plan for NUSEL-Homestake, to NSF, explaining that our group plans no further work on this project. The Project Book shows, for the first time, that a world-leading facility could have been built. With great regret we will then turn our attention and energy to developing the plans for an alternative site. Our commitment to the science demands that we do so.” • Barrick Response: Vincent Borg, a spokesman for Barrick, called the scientists' threats an "11th hour red herring" and "regrettable gamesmanship." “more economical to allow the mine to flood now and empty it later” Steve Elliott

39. Summary Compelling forefront science with a broad impact • the nature of neutrinos, astrophysics, supernova, dark matter, nucleon decay, nuclear astrophysics, origin of elements, Earthlab, Geomicrobiolgy... • Resounding endorsement from review committees. Unique opportunity to establish the world’s deepest and most extensive science laboratory within the United States aimed at the future generations of underground science experiments. • The concept of such a laboratory has a wide base of support. • Not everyone agrees on implementation. Flooding of Homestake confuses the situation - June 03 Steve Elliott

40. I wish to congratulate the organizers for a great meeting. I especially thank them for inviting me. Steve Elliott