Nov05-final.qxd 25/11/2005 12:40 PM Page 339 A ( EARLY D ......presentation created great interest in the possibilities of the proposed site, particularly since little progress was

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERGROUNDSNO LABORATORY IN CANADA

by G.T. Ewan and W.F. Davidson

ARTICLE DE FOND ( EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ... SNO ... )

George T. Ewan <[email protected]>, Depart-ment of Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario;and Walter F. Davidson, National Research Council ofCanada, Ottawa, Ontario

Fundamental physics measurements can be made by manydifferent techniques. In particle physics they usually involveexpensive high-energy particle accelerators. In the late sev-enties interest grew in non-accelerator particle physicswhich makes use of very low back-ground laboratories built deepunderground. Some experiments hadalready been started deep under-ground - studies of high energy cos-mic rays, solar neutrino measure-ments, and searches for rare process-es such as proton decay and

-decay. In 1982, Los AlamosNational Laboratory hosted a work-shop on Science Underground,which reviewed experiments beingdone underground and examinedthe possibility of building a NationalUnderground Science Facility(NUSF) in the USA [1]. In late1982 Norman Ramsay (HarvardUniversity) and in early 1983Ken Lande (University ofPennsylvania) gave colloquia at NRC, Ottawa and discussedthe future trends in particle physics. Following these visits asmall group led by George Ewan (Queen's University),Walter Davidson (NRC) and Pierre Depommier (Universitéde Montréal) started to explore the possibility of developinga deep underground laboratory in Canada for fundamentalphysics research. A study of possible sites and a considera-tion of potential experiments led to a proposal for a protondecay experiment in Inco's Creighton mine in Lively, nearSudbury. Other sites were considered but this was selectedas the best available and Inco management was very cooper-ative. In collaboration with Ken Lande, a preliminary pro-posal was made to develop an experiment to search fornucleon decay using a liquid scintillator detector system.The project involved the construction of a large modular,extremely pure liquid scintillation detector with a specialhigh transparency mineral-oil-based scintillator. This was tobe located at the 4800 ft. level in Creighton mine.

We visited Sudbury with Ken Lande in early May 1983 toexplore the potential of Creighton Mine and to discuss withInco management the possibility of doing an experiment intheir mine. They already had a small research activity grow-ing plants underground in association with LaurentianUniversity. We had set up the visit with Inco beforehandand Inco staff was generous with their time. They took usdown to the 6600 ft. level, the 7000 ft. level (to inspect thecrusher station), and the 4800 ft. level where they suggesteda site that might be suitable for the proton-decay experimentand would not interfere with the operation of the mine. The

Inco VP, Wint Newman, our host, had set up a meeting withthe Sudbury Regional Council, i.e. all the local mayors, sothat we could let them know about our proposed projectfirst hand, and through them, reach the local public. Thisproved to be a seminal meeting. The mayors also learned

that we had been looking in Timminsfor an underground site, but realizingthe benefits that could accrue toSudbury, unanimously approved thatwe should come to Creighton.

This was the first time we metTom Davies, the regional councilchairman, who became an enthusias-tic supporter of the project as he wasvery keen to diversify the interests ofthe Sudbury region. To increaseawareness and understanding of theproject we also met Doug Hallmanand other faculty at LaurentianUniversity, and David Pearson, thedirector of the new science center,Science North. Fig. 1 shows the

authors of this article at the 7000 ft. level in 1983.

In August 1983 NSERC asked that we present our prelimi-nary proposal to an expert review panel for considerationalongside groups with fully developed proposals involvingmajor collaboration in the OPAL experiment at the LEP col-lider at CERN and at the HERA experiment at the DESY lab-oratory in Hamburg. Our goal was to obtain funding inorder to continue our feasibility study and develop adetailed proposal. The panel recommended that the two out-of-country proposals be funded, and decided to turn downour request. We were disappointed at this rejection asCanada could have been a major player earlier in the fastdeveloping area of non-accelerator particle physics. We con-tinued to explore the possibilities of non-accelerator experi-ments in fundamental physics and the role that Canadacould play if a world-class laboratory were built deepunderground in a site such as that in the Creighton mine.We made several presentations to the scientific communityand found great interest in the possibilities. In 1984Ted Litherland reviewed the field at the CAP annual con-gress in Sherbrooke. Although not directly involved he wasenthusiastic about the type of physics that could be done.At that time there was already one experiment in Canadain an underground laboratory: a small group led by

Fundamental physics meas-urements can be made bymany different techniques.In the late seventies interestgrew in non-accelerator par-ticle physics which makesuse of very low backgroundlaboratories built deepunderground.

LA PHYSIQUE AU CANADA novembre / décembre 2005 339

Nov05-final.qxd 25/11/2005 12:40 PM Page 339

340 PHYSICS IN CANADA November / December 2005

FEATURE ARTICLE ( EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF ... SNO ... )

John Simpson, University of Guelph,and including Barry Robertson,Queen's University, was searchingfor evidence of -decay in 76Ge inan experiment located in a salt minenear Windsor, Ontario. This requiredvery low radioactive backgroundsand this group's expertise in deter-mining extremely low levels ofradioactive contamination in materi-als and in evaluating environmentalbackgrounds was of great value inthe selection of materials used in theconstruction of the SNO detector andin estimating background countingrates in the proposed site.

In January 1984 we presented ourideas on a Canadian undergroundlaboratory at an InternationalConference at Park City, Utah [2]. Thepresentation created great interest inthe possibilities of the proposed site,particularly since little progress wasbeing made at that time in the USAto attract funding for a large under-ground facility [1]. As a result of thePark City conference, many scientistscontacted us and several went toSudbury and were impressed withthe possibilities. In March 1984,under the leadership of Al Mann,University of Pennsylvania, a smallgroup deeply involved in the U.S. proposal visited Ottawaand Sudbury. A presentation in Ottawa summarized thegreat potential of science underground. In Sudbury our visi-tors were impressed with the potential of the proposed sitein Creighton mine. Inco's positive attitude and their enthusi-astic readiness to host an experiment were extremely help-ful in convincing potential collaborators of the viability ofan underground science laboratory in Canada. As a result ofthe increased interest we were invited to collaborate inpreparing proposals for several experiments both in Canadaand abroad. One of the visiting scientists was Herb Chen(University of California at Irvine), whose group was work-ing on a 7 kilotonne liquid argon time projection chamberfor use in solar neutrino studies and proton decay experi-ments. Later, as discussed below, he would suggest theheavy water solar neutrino detector, which led to the forma-tion of the SNO collaboration. By this time we were firmlyconvinced that Canada could develop a world-class deepunderground laboratory, which could make a major contri-bution to the field, and we concentrated our efforts ondeveloping an international program that could be sited inCanada. We felt that this was a unique opportunity thatshould not be missed. Our work concentrated on solar neu-trinos while another suggestion was made by David Hannato study muon bundles (the DUMBO project) [18].

FORMATION OF THE SNO COLLABORATIONIn the summer of 1984 Herb Chen presented a paper at anAIP neutrino conference in Lead, South Dakota, in which he

pointed out that a very large heavywater (D20) detector (several kilo-tonnes) would be excellent fordetecting solar neutrinos [3]. Thispaper suggested the detection ofelectron neutrinos by the ChargedCurrent (CC) reaction on deuterium( e + d p + p + e-). Heavy waterhad been used by other Irvine scien-tists in experiments at LAMPF andSavannah River, but never in a verylarge detector. In a later paper, Chenpointed out that all types of neutri-nos could also be observed by theNeutral Current (NC) reaction [4].Detection of the neutral current reac-tion ( x + d n + p + x) involvedthe measurement of the neutrons inthe SNO detector. Extremely lowbackgrounds were essential for theseexperiments. Heavy water had pre-viously been suggested for neutrinodetection [5], but availability and costwere a deterrent: a heavy waterdetector had been used byT.L. Jenkins (Case Western ReserveUniversity) but it was too small andcould only put an upper limit on thesolar neutrino flux. Chen produced aprototype design similar to that inthe light water (H2O) detector beingused at Kamioka, designed originallyfor proton decay experiments and

later used for solar neutrino measurements. This designrequired several kilotonnes of heavy water and he talked toCliff Hargrove, with whom he had previously collaboratedat LAMPF (Los Alamos), to explore the possibility of usingheavy water on loan from Canada's reserve for its CANDUreactor program. Preliminary discussions with Geoff Hannaand Ara Mooradian of AECL indicated that, under appro-priate conditions, it might be possible to borrow 1000 tonnesof heavy water (value ~ $300M), provided it was returnedin the same condition as when supplied, and for a limitedtime until it was required for installation in a new nuclearpower reactor. The availability of such a large quantity ofheavy water was unique to Canada. As a result, we had ameeting at the NRC in Ottawa in September 1984, at whichit was decided that, since there was a possibility of obtain-ing heavy water on loan, we would proceed with a feasibili-ty study to see if there were any physics problems thatwould make a 1000 tonne heavy water detector unsuitablefor solar neutrino measurements. Among the problems dis-cussed were backgrounds from radioactivity in the heavywater, light transmittance in the heavy water, and the sizeof excavation required deep underground in the Creightonmine. At that meeting, which in retrospect was the firstSNO Collaboration meeting, it was decided that Herb Chenwould lead the US team and George Ewan would lead theCanadian team. At that time the focus of the US effort was astrong group from the University of California at Irvine anda smaller group from Princeton University. The Canadianteam was from Queen's University, Carleton University, theUniversity of Guelph, Laurentian University, NRC and

Fig. 1 The authors at the 7000 ft. level in theCreighton mine, May 1983.




location. Our findings from the feasibility study were sum-marized in a July 1985 report to NRC and NSERC [6]. As aguide to the sharing of costs we proposed that the construc-tion of the underground laboratory be funded by Canada,and that the construction and cost of components for theSNO detector be equally shared by Canada and the UnitedStates.

In October 1985 we submitted a grant request (including anupdate to the report in Ref. 6) to NSERC for funds to contin-ue our research and to fund an exploration drift to find asuitable site where a very large cavity, 20 m in diametercould be excavated at the 6800 ft. level. This required findinga region in the mine well removed from known shear zonesin the rock and from mining operations. Inco engineers hadsuggested a tentative location. However, before proceedingfurther a dedicated 200 m drift had to be excavated to thissite in order to carry out measurements of the stresses in therock. Inco agreed to do this at cost.

The grant proposal was reviewed by an international com-mittee appointed by NSERC. The committee was veryenthusiastic about the proposal and recommended thatfunds should be provided for the digging of the access drift($400K) and funding for the design proposal ($85K). In theirconclusions they stated that "the physics goals of this proposalare of outstanding value" and that "the final proposed heavy waterdetector with very low background would be unique in the world."The access drift to find a suitable site for the very large cavi-ty was essential if the project was to proceed. Furthermore,the committee concluded "the access drift will be a wise andvaluable future investment for Canadian Science, which can onlybenefit Canada. Even if the field were to change, this access driftcould be used in the future for other important experiments."

The grant proposal was also reviewed by the NSERC sub-atomic physics grants committee, which, we understand,gave it lower priority than some experiments at acceleratorsoutside Canada. We were astounded, as were members ofthe international review committee, to receive notificationfrom NSERC in April 1985 that zero funds were beingawarded, but they suggested we could use some funds fromexisting grants to continue with the feasibility study. Thesewere far too small to allow the construction of the accessdrift. At an emergency meeting of the collaboration weagreed that the project could die if we did not find a suitablesite for the large cavity deep underground. Construction ofthe drift was essential if the SNO project was to continue intimely fashion. The project had strong support by the scien-tific community. NRC, Queen's University, University ofCalifornia, Irvine and the University of Guelph managed toprovide support from their limited discretionary funds of ~$350K. It was highly unusual at that time for funds to beprovided to a project that had been rejected by a fundingagency. In retrospect the bold decisions by top administra-tors in these institutions showed confidence in their col-leagues and the judgment of the international review com-mittee, and their courage prevented the possible collapse ofthe SNO project. With this funding Queen's University, onbehalf of the collaboration, signed a contract with Inco toexcavate the access drift to the proposed site in the "hangingwall" of the mine, where the requisite geotechnical study tocharacterize the rock in situ could be carried out.

AECL. In October 1984 we sent a letter of intent to NSERCinforming them of our intention to study the feasibility ofstudying solar neutrinos using a heavy water detector in adeep underground laboratory in Inco's Creighton mine.Right from the start this was an international collaborationwith funding to be obtained from the participants' nationalfunding agencies and with the capital costs shared. In 1985the University of Oxford joined the collaboration, whenDavid Sinclair was on sabbatical leave in Ottawa, thusincreasing the international participation.

The feasibility study was funded in Canada by a grant tothe universities from NSERC and by support from NRC andChalk River Nuclear Laboratories (AECL). These two largenational laboratories provided many services not availableat the universities. The first engineering study of the projectwas prepared by Ken McFarlane in the design office atCRNL. In the U.S.A. the research was funded through theDepartment of Energy (DOE). Many facets of the detectorhad to be explored. As the proposed experiment had count-ing rates of a few neutrinos per day it was essential toensure that the background from radioactivity was very lowas this could mask the signal. Measurements by Davis Earleat Chalk River found that the level of tritium in the AECLheavy water would produce an unacceptable background.The final stage of enrichment of this heavy water used asystem that was also used for upgrading heavy water thathad already been in a reactor (tritium is produced duringuse in the reactor through neutron capture on deuterium).Heavy water from Ontario Hydro, whose enrichment sys-tem had never been exposed to heavy water from a nuclearreactor, had acceptably low levels of tritium for our purpos-es and an exchange was subsequently arranged betweenAECL and Ontario Hydro. The light transmittance of heavywater was measured at NRC and found to be adequate. Thetiming and noise characteristics of the proposed 50 cmdiameter photomultiplier tubes were measured at Queens'sby Hay Boon Mak. The radioactivity from materials wasmeasured at Guelph and other laboratories. Cleanliness ofunderground facilities was studied at LaurentianUniversity. The photomultiplier glass was found to be aproblem and in the final detector the glass envelopes for thephotomultiplier tubes were made of special low radioactivi-ty glass provided by the Schott glass company in Germany,who had built a new furnace dedicated to this purpose. Asthe maximum heavy water available was about 1000 tonnes,the detector had to be redesigned so that all of it would beused to detect neutrinos and none for shielding, as wasbeing done in other water Cerenkov neutrino detectors. Asuggestion was made by the Irvine group that we use atransparent acrylic vessel to contain the heavy water with alight water shield outside the acrylic vessel to reduce theeffect of radioactivity from the cavern walls. This was incor-porated in the preliminary design, which also took intoaccount the levels of radioactivity in the heavy waterincluding tritium, optical transmittance through the waterand acrylic, properties of large 50 cm diameter photomulti-pliers, backgrounds from all sources, and many otheraspects. A large cavity, 20 m in diameter and 30 m high,was envisaged. Geotechnical studies by Inco indicated thatthis might be possible if a suitable location were foundaway from fault lines and with acceptable stresses in therock. This would require measurements at the proposed




The proposed direct counting solar neutrino experimentusing heavy water neutrinos created great interest at inter-national scientific meetings such as the meeting in Vald'Aosta, Italy [19], the Seventh Workshop on GrandUnification (ICOBAN '86) [7] in Japan, and the US solar neu-trino meeting in Washington. As a result of the many pre-sentations to the scientific community in Canada andabroad there was great support from the scientific commu-nity. The major concern expressed was whether or not a suf-ficiently low background could be achieved in such a largedetector in a working mine.

It was important that we inform the general public in theSudbury region of the proposed experiment deep under-ground in a local mine. Our initial discussions were withthe mine management at the Creighton mine near Sudbury.Before having public meetings, Walter Curlook, VicePresident of Inco, in charge of Ontario operations, arrangedfor a presentation to the Inco Board of Directors in Torontoso that they could be fully informed about the project andassure themselves that it would not affect the operation ofthe mine. Once INCO were informed about the projectand its status we had meetings in the Sudbury region.Bill McLatchie made the presentation to the INCO board inAugust 1986 and then to the Council in Lively, where theCreighton mine was located, and to the Sudbury RegionalCouncil on successive days in September 1986. He mademany other presentations to university groups and politi-cians. There was great media coverage in the Sudburyregion including TV coverage on Global television. TheSudbury Star interviewed Bill McLatchie and George Ewanand had a full page article on the possibility of an interna-tional laboratory located near Sudbury. It was also coveredin As It Happens, and Ontario Morning. In the nationalpress a story on the underground project appeared in theGlobe and Mail. Tom Davies, Sudbury Regional Chairman,was a great supporter of the project and emphasized theimportance of keeping the public well informed about ourplans. He arranged meetings for us with politicians and thelocal union at Inco (United Steelworkers of America), andwith its Canadian President (Leo Gérard). It was importantto let the workers know what was proposed as early as pos-sible. Throughout the project we have continued this policyof informing the public. It was also important to provideboth Federal and Provincial politicians of this unique oppor-tunity for Canada to have a world-class research laboratorydeep underground for fundamental physics research.Meetings were held with the Minister of Science, WilliamWinegard, and local Members of Parliament. We also metwith all three caucuses in Ontario and in the Premier'sOffice.

The scientific work continued with the objective of prepar-ing a detailed proposal for the SNO laboratory. This had toinclude both the design of the detector and the under-ground laboratory. Measurements of backgrounds of mate-rials and backgrounds down the mine showed that it shouldbe possible to obtain a sufficiently low background for theexperiment. Light transmittance measurements in heavywater, normal water and acrylic were made and found to besufficiently good. Simulations of the detector response toneutrinos showed that the position of events could also beestablished as well as the energy. The exploratory drift tofind a suitable site was underway with the expectation from

geological data that this should be possible. A preliminarydesign of the underground laboratory was used to discusswith INCO electrical and other services, such as air andwater supplies that would be required. During this phaseHugh Evans had frequent meetings with INCO engineers inSudbury to establish the feasibility of the preliminarydesign.

We submitted another grant request to NSERC for fundingof the university groups to continue the research and to pre-pare a detailed proposal. This went to the NSERC subatom-ic physics grants committee. This year it was impressed bythe great scientific progress made since the previous requestand by the expansion in the size of the collaboration toinclude new members from the Canadian institutions.Several members were added when the Queen's Universitynuclear physics group decided to phase out the researchprogram at the Van de Graaff accelerator and join the SNOcollaboration. The committee recommended that fundsshould be allocated to continue research and to prepare adetailed proposal and funding was received in April 1987.The proposed SNO experiment continued to receive widesupport from the scientific community worldwide. Forexample, it received enthusiastic endorsement in a letter(reproduced recently in an article by S.M. Bilenky [17]) fromBruno Pontecorvo, who was a pioneer in the field of solarneutrino detection and neutrino oscillations. TheInternational Conference on Neutrino Physics andAstrophysics in 1988 sent a message to the President ofNRC stating: "This program will make Canada a leader in thefield of fundamental particle physics."

The detailed proposal for the construction of the SudburyNeutrino Observatory was submitted in October 1987 [8].This was supported by a large volume ("Red Book") givingdetails of measurements that had been made in the develop-ment of the proposal. At the time of submission the site ofthe laboratory at the 6800 ft. level in the mine had not yetbeen definitively established. This proposal was the basicdocument on which the construction of the SNO laboratoryand experimental program were based. Research continuedand several changes were subsequently made, such as thedecision to use a spherical acrylic vessel.

At that stage the collaboration consisted of the 6 Canadianand 2 US institutions referred to earlier with the addition ofthe University of Oxford. The detailed proposal was widelycirculated in the scientific community for comments andexpressions of interest. In December 1987, a group from theUniversity of Pennsylvania, led by Gene Beier, joined thecollaboration. This group had extensive experience inunderground science at the Kamioka mine in Japan. One oftheir important responsibilities was the design of the elec-tronics system. The Oxford and Princeton groups addedseveral new members.

A SNO Scientific and Technical Review Committee was setup jointly by NSERC and NRC to comment on the proposaland make recommendations to the funding agencies. Thiscommittee, chaired by radioastronomer Philip Kronberg,University of Toronto, was composed of world leaders inthe field, both experimentalists and theorists. The SNO col-laboration gave a series of presentations to this committee atNRC in June 1988. In their summary comments the commit-

Nov05-final.qxd 28/11/2005 9:46 AM Page 342



In November 1987 the collaboration had suffered a great losswith the passing of Herb Chen, who had initiated the projectand as the US spokesman provided leadership and manyscientific ideas. Art McDonald, Princeton University, tookover as US spokesperson and was joined by Gene Beier,University of Pennsylvania, as co-spokesperson in 1988.Fred Reines, University of California at Irvine, acted as theinterim UC Irvine Principal Investigator, even though hehad many other commitments.

In November 1988 a large group from Los Alamos NationalLaboratory (LANL), led by Hamish Robertson, which hadextensive experience in neutrino physics, joined the collabo-ration. This group suggested using 3He counters for observ-ing neutrons from the NC reaction. Some members of theLos Alamos group moved to the University of Washington,Seattle in 1994, but continued to work on the 3He detectors.In the fall of 1988, a Canadian group from the University ofBritish Columbia (UBC), led by Chris Waltham also joined.The close connection of the UBC group to TRIUMF provedto be of great value for technical assistance and advice. Wewere sorry that the other members of the Herb Chen's origi-nal group left Irvine and went to other positions.Fortunately Peter Doe, a leader in the work on the acrylicvessel, became a member of the LANL group. In March 1989a group from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), led byRick Norman, joined the collaboration. Kevin Lesko of thisgroup took major responsibility for the photomultiplier tubesupport structure. In the period 1987-1989 the teams at theCanadian institutions also expanded and the universityresearch groups were supported by NSERC grants. By theend of 1989 the collaboration had grown to a sizable team ofabout 70 scientists from 12 institutions. Funding for the con-struction of the SNO laboratory was approved in January1990 by the Government of Canada. It was estimated thatconstruction would take around 4 years. We expect that thefascinating story of the construction of the detector and themany problems that were overcome in its successful comple-tion will be the subject of a report in the future.

Another majorchange occurredin the adminis-tration of theproject. Duringthe design stagewe were a loose-ly knit team withGeorge Ewanand Herb Chenas the firstspokespersonsfor the collabora-tion. The collabo-ration wasalways run as ateam effort withfrequent meet-ings to discussprogress. TheCanadian leaderof the project,George Ewan,

tee's report states "in conclusion, despite the existence of a num-ber of difficulties associated with the experiment, such as its real-ization in a hostile mine environment, and the question of unam-biguously identifying the neutral current signal the committee isconvinced of the exceptional scientific merit of this proposal andthe strong justification for its timely funding."

Fig. 2 shows members of the SNO collaboration after thepresentation to the committee at the NRC laboratories inJune 1988.

The findings and recommendations of the internationalScientific and Technical Review Committee were made pub-lic in late August 1988. NRC and NSERC Councils subse-quently fully endorsed these recommendations, each provi-sionally proposing a contribution of some $10M towards thecapital cost of the project. In the US, the SNO project wasreviewed by the Nuclear Science Committee (NSAC) ofDOE and received the highest rating, higher than severalUS-based projects. The estimated capital cost of the projectwas ~ $ 40M in 1987 dollars, but with no allowance forinflation. Operating costs were to come from the individualgranting agencies in the countries involved. Many discus-sions took place on funding the project with federal andprovincial sources in Canada and with DOE in the U.S andgranting agencies in the U.K. The total funding package wasapproved in January 1990 and construction started soonthereafter.

After the publication of the report we made many presenta-tions of our ideas both to scientists and the general public.Descriptions of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory projectappeared in the national newspapers and interviews tookplace on television. We informed our federal MPs andprovincial MLAs of the project and the unique opportunitythat Canada had to become a world leader in this emergingand exciting field. More details are given in the accompany-ing article [9].

Fig. 2 The SNO collaboration after the presentation to the International Review Committee June 1988.




who had guided the development of the project in Canadafrom its inception and through the formation and expansionof the collaboration was due to retire in 1992. Major fund-ing of a large experiment required a much more formalorganization. It was agreed that an Institute would be setup by Queen's University to administer the SNO project.This Institute was set up under the authority of Queen'sSenate. Art McDonald, who had been the SNO PrincipalInvestigator at Princeton, spent a sabbatical year at Queen'sand in 1989 accepted an appointment as Professor ofPhysics at Queen's. He was appointed as the first Director ofthe Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Institute when it wasformed and has guided the project through the constructionphase and data-taking phase. George Ewan continued hiswork on the project and was the Chairman of the SNOManagement Committee.

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN OF SNO DETECTOR Herb Chen's initial concept of a heavy water solar neutrinodetector is shown in Fig. 3. This design required a verylarge amount of heavy water (D2O) in order to obtain anappreciable fiducial volume where the external backgroundfrom the surroundings would be sufficiently low. This wasthe type of design used by the group at Kamioka in theirwater Cerenkov detector, which used 3000 tonnes of normalwater (H2O) with a fiducial volume of 1000 tonnes for neu-trino detection. Using this design, and the fact that the max-imum amount of heavy water that could be made availableto us was 1000 tonnes would have led to a fiducial volume,available for the measurement of solar neutrinos, that wastoo small for significant results.

This was recognized early in the feasibility study and thedecision was made to enclose the heavy water in a transpar-ent container in a bath of ultra pure light water, whichwould provide shielding fromthe external background.Various suggestions were madesuch as a polythene bag or anacrylic vessel. The suggestionof the acrylic vessel came fromHerb Chen after a visit with hisdaughter to Sea World in SanDiego where there was a largeaquarium window with a signstating it was made byReynolds and Taylor (laterReynolds Polymer Technology)by bonding pieces of acrylictogether. This firm fortunatelywas located only two milesfrom the Irvine campus and heimmediately contacted themand began discussions of anacrylic vessel for SNO. Acrylicfor use in the heavy waterdetector required good trans-mittance in the ultravioletregion and very low Th and Ucontent was required. Thestrength of the acrylic vesselwith walls that did not absorbtoo much light was a major

concern Consultations were held with an expert, G.Stachiw, who had designed acrylic submersibles being usedfor manned underwater exploration. Although we requireda much large vessel, 12 m in diameter, he advised us that itcould be practicable if confirmed by detailed calculations.The design of the detector in the SNO proposal is shown inFig. 4. Detailed calculations after the initial proposalshowed that a spherical vessel would be better for optimiz-ing the strength for a given thickness of acrylic and the finaldesign of the detector is shown in Fig. 5. The design had tobe approved by AECL as a suitable container of 1000 tonnesof heavy water worth about $300M.

The properties of the acrylic used for the vessel were criticalto the success of the experiment. In addition to the structur-al strength of the vessel, the acrylic had to have as goodlight transmittance as possible in the ultra-violet region andto be very low in radioactivity, especially in Th and U. Thework on the structural strength was concentrated at Irvinewith Peter Doe as the leader, the optical transmittancemeasurements mostly done at NRC, and the radioactivitymeasurements at Chalk River and Guelph. Quality controlof the acrylic supplied by the manufacturer was essentialand Davis Earle was the leader of this effort. Cleanliness ofthe laboratory was essential and Doug Hallman ofLaurentian was the leader of that effort. The overall successof the SNO experiment depended on reaching very lowbackground levels.

Because it had to be assembled underground at the 6800 ft.level it was manufactured in 130 separate sections of a sizethat could be fitted in the underground transport cage 12 ft.by 6ft. and 10 ft. high The vessel was dry assembled aboveground to check that all sections fitted and then the sectionsmoved underground and bonded together. The manufactur-er of the acrylic vessel was Reynolds Polymer Technology,

Fig. 4 The SNO detector design in the SNO pro-posal of October 1987.

Fig. 3 Initial concept of the SNO detectorfrom feasibility report of July 1985.




the Schott glass company led to aglass with lower U and Th content.By careful control of the elementsused in their manufacture they wereable to make glass envelopes withreduced radioactivity. These weresupplied to Hamamatsu who usedthem in the production of their pho-tomultipliers.

The measurement of the radioactivi-ty in all components of the detectorwas crucial to the success of theexperiment. Key components werethe heavy water, the acrylic vessel,the water surrounding the vessel, thephotomultiplier tubes and back-grounds from the cavity walls. Thecavity walls were lined with Urylonto reduce the level of radon from thatsource. The phototubes used the spe-cial low radioactivity glass and wereplaced 2 m from the heavy water toenable the light water to providedsome -ray shielding. The water han-

dling and purification systems were designed to achieveextremely pure water with extremely low levels of U andTh. High-energy -rays from radioactivity in the rock wallsof the cavity were also a source of background events. Thesurface of the acrylic vessel was ~ 5m. from the cavity wallsand the light water shield acted as an absorber which greatlyreduced this problem.

An important feature of theSNO detector is the ability tomeasure both the flux of elec-tron neutrinos by the chargedcurrent (CC) reaction and thetotal flux of neutrinos by theneutral current (NC) reaction.The neutrons from the NC reac-tion when captured on thedeuteron produce -rays of6 MeV, which in turn produceCerenkov light observed by thephotomultipliers. In the SNOproposal it was suggested thatwe add NaCl to the heavywater to enhance this signal asthe cross section was larger andthe total energy release follow-ing neutron capture greater. Analternative suggestion wasmade by Cliff Hargrove to usean array of Gd tubes in thedetector and another proposalby the Los Alamos group to usean array of 3He counters. It wasdecided in 1991 to proceed withboth the addition of salt and the3He suggestion. The suggestedrunning scenario was first to doa pure heavy water run, fol-

which was responsible for the assembly underground.Fig. 6 shows a schematic figure of the acrylic vessel. Allcomponents of the detector had to be transported under-ground. The assembly was complicated and very time con-suming. It involved many of the SNO scientists and innova-tive solutions to the problems that occurred. The oversightof the construction underground was carried out byKen McFarlane, Duncan Hepburn, and Bob Brewer. Fig. 7shows the completed detector before it wasfilled with heavy water.

The signals from the neutrino reactions arephotons of Cerenkov light detected byphotomultiplier tubes surrounding theheavy water. Initially, in the referencedesign we planned to use the same 50 cmdiameter Hamamatsu tubes used in theKamioka detector. The timing and noiseproperties of these tubes were measured atQueen's. Timing resolution was importantas we planned to locate the position ofevents as accurately as possible by measur-ing the transit times to the photomultipli-ers and reconstructing the position. Thetiming resolution of 20 cm photomultipli-ers being developed by several manufac-turers was considerably better, allowingbetter event reconstruction accuracy.In the final design we used 20 cmHamamatsu tubes with light concentratorsadded to improve the light collection ontothe photocathode. The geometry andmaterial properties of these concentratorshad been researched by the Oxford andUBC groups.

Since the glass envelope of the phototubeswas a source of background, visits byHamish Robertson and Hamish Leslie to

Fig. 5 Design of the detector with sphericalacrylic vessel used in SNO experiment.

Fig. 6 Schematic diagram of acrylicvessel.

Fig. 7 Photograph of the assembled SNOdetector.




lowed by the additionof salt and the 3Hecounters. These twomethods would havedifferent possible sys-tematic errors. Theconcept of the 3Hedetectors is shown inFig. 8. The 3He detec-tors were funded byDOE in the U.S. andtheir developmentwas led by theUniversity ofWashington and LosAlamos groups.

A detailed descriptionof the final detectordesign is published inNuclear Instrumentsand Methods [11] .Many papers havebeen given at confer-ences and descriptionsof the detector at vari-ous stages appeared inPhysics in Canada [10].

SUMMARYThe SNO detector received commitments of funding fromsources in Canada, US and UK in 1989. A detailed reviewof the proposed budget by a joint Canadian-US committeeheaded by Ed Temple took place in November 1989. Thefunding of the SNO project was announced in Ottawa onJanuary 4, 1990 by the Minister of Science, WilliamWinegard, who had been a strong supporter of the project.

This brief review has only covered some events before actu-al construction started in 1990. During this period therewere ~ 4 full collaboration meetings per year, in whichprogress was reviewed and many suggestions for changesto the detector considered. It should be emphasized that thefinal design was the result of a team effort with all groupscontributing. Throughout this period the excellent coopera-tion of Inco, who helped in the location of a suitable site andin many other ways, was invaluable. The fascinating storyof the construction of this complex detector and the prob-lems faced and solved should be the subject of another arti-cle.

The results obtained with the SNO detector have mademajor contributions to the understanding of neutrinos andthe limitations of the standard model. These results, whichhave been published [12-16], provide definitive evidence forthe first time that electron neutrinos oscillate between differ-ent types in their passage from the center of the sun wherethey are produced to earth. The total solar neutrino fluxobserved by SNO agrees with the predictions of solar mod-els, thereby solving a three-decade old problem, oftenreferred to as the Solar Neutrino Problem. Previous experi-ments measured only electron neutrinos and had zero orlow sensitivity to other types. Only ~ 34% of electron neutri-

nos produced in the sun from 8B arrive at Earth:the rest have changed into other types. Neutrinooscillations show that neutrinos have a finite restmass and this requires that modifications mustnow be included in fundamental theories.

REFERENCES1. M.M. Nieto et al., Editors, "Science Underground"

Conference at Los Alamos, AIP Conf. Proc. 96 (1983).2. W.F. Davidson, P. Depommier, G.T. Ewan, and H.-

B. Mak, "A National Underground PhysicsLaboratory in Canada", Proc. International Conf.Baryon Non-Conservation (ICOBAN '84), Park City,Utah, 1984, pp. 273-277.

3. H.H. Chen, Solar Neutrinos and NeutrinoAstronomy (Homestake, 1984), AIP Conf. Proc. 126(1985) p. 249.

4. H.H. Chen, "Direct Approach to Resolve the SolarNeutrino Problem", Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 1534.

5. F. Reines, "The Search for the Solar Neutrino", Proc.Roy. Soc. A 304 (1967) 159.

6. G.T. Ewan et al., Sudbury Neutrino Observatory -Feasibility Study for a Neutrino Observatory Based on aLarge Heavy Water Detector Deep Underground (SNO-85-3 "Blue Book"), July 1985.

7. G.T. Ewan, "The Canadian Underground Project--Sudbury Neutrino Observatory", J. Arafune, Editor,Proc. 7th Workshop on Grand Unification, ICOBAN '86,Toyama (1986) 95.

8. G.T. Ewan et al., Sudbury Neutrino ObservatoryProposal (SNO-87-12 "White Book"), October 1987.

9. W.F. Davidson and G.T. Ewan, Physics in Canada(accompanying article).

10. E.D. Earle, W.F. Davidson and G.T Ewan, "Observing the sunfrom two kilometres underground: The Sudbury NeutrinoObservatory", Physics in Canada 44 (1988) 49; see also themeissue on the building of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory inPhysics in Canada 48 (2002); "Sudbury Neutrino Observatory -Construction Enters Final Stage", E.D. Hallman andA.B. McDonald, Physics in Canada 50 (1994)186.

11. J. Boger et al., The SNO Collaboration, "The Sudbury NeutrinoObservatory", Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., A 449 (2000)2909.

12. Q.R. Ahmad et al.,"Measurement of the Rate of e + d p + p +e¯ Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the SudburyNeutrino Observatory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301.

13. Q.R. Ahmad et al.,"Direct Evidence for Neutrino FlavorTransformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in theSudbury Neutrino Observatory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002)011301.

14. Q.R. Ahmad et al., "Measurement of Day and Night NeutrinoEnergy Spectra at SNO and Constraints on Neutrino MixingParameters", Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011302.

15. S.N. Ahmed et al.,"Constraints on Nucleon Decay via "Invisible"Modes from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory", S.N. Ahmedet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 102004.

16. S.N. Ahmed et al.,"Measurement of the Total Active 8B SolarNeutrino Flux at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory withEnhanced Neutral Current Sensitivity", Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004)181301.

17. S.M. Bilenky, "The History of Neutrino Oscillations", Proc.Nobel Symposium on Neutrino Physics, Enkoping, Sweden,August 2004, in press: preprint arXiv: hep-ph/0410090.

18. D. Hanna, "A Cosmic-Ray Astrophysics Facility in Canada", IlNuovo Cimento, 9C (1986) 333.

19. D. Sinclair et al., "Proposal to Build a Neutrino Observatory inSudbury, Canada", Il Nuovo Cimento, 9C (1986) 308.

Fig. 8 Concept for 3He tubes (NCD Array) in SNOdetector.


THE FUNDING CAMPAIGN FOR THESUDBURY NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

by W.F. Davidson and G.T. Ewan

ARTICLE DE FOND ( THE FUNDING CAMPAIGN ... )

Walter F. Davidson <[email protected]>,National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario;and George T. Ewan, Department of Physics, Queen'sUniversity, Kingston, Ontario

This article, a companion to the previous article on theearly development of the underground laboratory inSudbury, focuses on the events in the period fromSeptember 1988 to January 1990 whena concerted effort was made to securecapital funding for the construction ofthe Sudbury Neutrino Observatory(SNO). The search for funding of alarge-scale scientific project is neversimple, but more so in the Canadiancontext as there is no framework orappropriate mechanisms laid down toevaluate such a request.

The findings and recommendationsof the international Scientific andTechnical Review Committee weremade public in late August 1988.NRC and NSERC Councils subse-quently fully endorsed these recommendations, each provi-sionally proposing a contribution of some $10 milliontowards the project. The SNO collaboration asked us todevote efforts to secure Canadian funding by giving briefin-gs about the proposed project to key decision makers,including politicians, government officials, civic bodies, andto opinion leaders in the media. We were entering new terri-tory, given that the capital funding required from Canadiansources was at least $35 million, a sum beyond the capabilityof one single agency of the federal government. The totalcost from all sources, both for capital and operating during apredicted 4-year construction period, was $53 million. Therewas also no precedent in recent memory on which our cam-paign could be modeled. The campaign was more drawnout than we had anticipated and took, in the end, 16 months,i.e. until the end of December 1989.

Our US collaborators (Irvine, Princeton, Pennsylvania andLos Alamos) made an application in parallel to the USDepartment of Energy for funding. Their submission wasfor about US$12 million. After SNO had placed at the top ofa Nuclear Science Advisory Committee review, the DOE hadattached high priority to supporting the SNO proposal andit was ultimately relatively straightforward to secure the UScontribution, contingent on a commitment by theGovernment of Canada to fund the project. Later a contri-bution of close to $1 million (Canadian) was proposed by theUK funding body for a fraction of the capital cost and sup-port for the University of Oxford scientists in the project.

THE CAMPAIGNIn the fall of 1988, the only opportunity on the federal sceneto fill the funding gap was to apply to the then new Federal

Networks of Centres of Excellence program of the grantingcouncils. The collaboration spent two months preparing andsubmitting the case (the "Brown Book"), but NSERC eventu-

ally decided that the SNO proposaldid not really align with the criteria(in particular the industrial elements)of this program. After discussionwith the federal funding agencies, wedecided that it would help the over-all case if we could secure a signifi-cant fraction of the funding from theProvince of Ontario. Therefore, $7.6million was requested from theprovince. The argument was thatwith the site in Sudbury significantbenefits would accrue to theprovince, hence it was legitimate toask for such a contribution. Again,this was out of the ordinary as this

was the first time a province had been asked to provide sup-port for what essentially was a basic science driven initia-tive.

Over the next few months a number of events were organ-ized and influential people were briefed about the SNO proj-ect. The late Tom Davies, Regional Chair of theMunicipality of Sudbury, with whom we had had a veryfruitful association since we first visited Creighton Mine andSudbury in May 1983, organized many of the key meetings.Tom Davies introduced us to his network of highly placedcontacts. He insisted on accompanying us, opening doors inSudbury, Toronto, Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie, and elsewhere,to ensure that a broad set of influential people understoodthe positive implications of having such a high visibility sci-entific project in the North of Ontario, while we restrictedourselves to presenting the science and the technical issues.

Science North, the hands-on science museum in Sudbury,which became an outstanding example of public communi-cation in Science, was a very willing partner with the SNOcollaboration and we benefited extensively from their com-munications expertise. In fact, a memorable early meetingof Canadian and US scientists interested in exploring under-ground physics at Creighton Mine, which had just been vis-ited, took place on March 1, 1984 in an area, still under con-struction, that was going to be the Science North restaurantoverlooking Lake Ramsey. Science North arranged for and

The search for funding of alarge-scale scientific projectis never simple, but moreso in the Canadian contextas there is no framework orappropriate mechanismslaid down to evaluate sucha request.




FEATURE ARTICLE ( THE FUNDING CAMPAIGN ... )

hosted very well attended public lectures on SNO in May1987 and September 1989. Science North put up exhibits onSNO at that time, and indeed, all during construction andup to the present day Science North has been outstanding inits commitment to bring the essential science of SNO to awide public.

During this period, members of the SNO Collaboration gavepresentations at international conferences and gave lecturesto universities from coast to coast, in the US and in Europe,with a view to increasing wider interest in the significanceof this opportunity for Canada.

The campaign involved briefings to significant players.These included the deputy speaker of the Senate of Canada,the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Science, theAmbassador of the United States, the caucuses of all threeparties of the Legislature at Queen's Park, Members ofParliament, and Members of theProvincial Legislature.Influential groups such as Chairof the Board of Inco Limited andother Inco senior executives, theCouncil of the RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury, theUnited Steelworkers of AmericaLocal 6500 (we met withPresident Leo Gérard) who formthe miner's union, the SudburyChamber of Commerce, theSudbury Regional DevelopmentCouncil, and Walden CountyCouncil (where Creighton Mineis located) received presentationsfrom us.

An illustrative 6-page brochurein full colour entitled "SudburyNeutrino Observatory - AUnique Canadian Opportunity"was produced to support theseactivities. At its head, under thesubtitle "Opening a new windowon the universe…" stood a quo-tation by Gerhard Herzberg:"The Sudbury NeutrinoObservatory offers incalculablepotential for the advancement ofscience in this country." Thisattractive brochure, very muchgeared to a public audience, wasdistributed liberally at our meet-ings and served to promote anappreciation of the importance ofwhat we were trying to achieve.

Interestingly, as a result of theseactivities, questions and state-ments about the importance ofthe SNO project were made inthe House of Commons by DianeMarleau (MP for Sudbury), John

Manley (then Opposition S&T Critic and MP for OttawaSouth), and John Rodriguez (MP for Nickel Belt). This washighly unusual since it was extremely rare for a Minister forScience to receive any question during Question Period.

The request we had made to the Government of Ontario fora contribution of $7.6 million became the subject of livelyparliamentary repartee about neutrinos during QuestionPeriod at Queen's Park throughout 1989, especially theinterventions launched by Floyd Laughren (NDP) (later anOntario Finance Minister) who questioned then PremierPeterson on several occasions, and also by Mike Harris (PC)(a future Premier of Ontario). One particularly outlandishinterchange during the 1989 Ontario budget debate wascaptured in Hansard of May 18, 1989 (see excerpt inSidebar 1). Such exchanges created a lot of interest and wel-come media 'buzz'.

SIDEBAR 1

Hon. R.F. Nixon: How about neutrinos?

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, it is funny the Treasurer would talk about neutrinos. I thought thatwhen the Premier’s technology fund was established, it was to accomplish and put in place projects suchas the Sudbury neutrino observatory. Because the Treasurer cannot see neutrinos, cannot feel neutrinos,cannot smell neutrinos, he thinks there is no such thing.

Mr. Wildman: He is a tactile person.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. There is a gap in the Treasurer’s education, because there is such a thing as pureresearch. For the Treasurer not to recognize that pure research is legitimate, I think, does not commentwell on his ability to look into the future or at least to try to think ahead as to the society we are going tohave. It is bothersome to hear the Treasurer forever sneer at the concept of a neutrino.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: Scoff.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer does. Every time we raise it, he sneers at the idea. That is simply not appro-priate. The United States is putting money into it; Great Britain is putting money into it. Ottawa hasput money into already through the National Research Council. This province has done diddly-squat,absolutely nothing, for the neutrino observatory.

Mr. D.S. Cooke: They only want $7 million, do they not?

Mr. Laughren: They want $7.2 million over four years. It is a good project. It is a world-class project.That in itself should attract the Treasurer.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: Yes, but is it proactive?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it is.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: How much do you need from us?

Mr. Laughren: We need $7.2 million over four years. Other jurisdictions are way ahead of this govern-ment and it really is sad.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: Is there money up there in Sudbury?

Mr.Laughren: Yes.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: And it’s just sitting in the bank.

Mr. Laughren: I see what you mean. No, they have committed their money to the observatory and theprovince has committed nothing. I think the Treasurer should reconsider.

Hon. R.F. Nixon: Neutrinos?

Mr. Laughren: The Sudbury neutrino observatory. It is an important project; SNO, as it is known forshort.

I would like to talk about post-secondary education and emphasize…….



ARTICLE DE FOND ( THE FUNDING CAMPAIGN ... )

ing opportunity that the SNO project offered by WhiteHouse Science Advisor D. Allan Bromley. The Ontario con-tribution was announced shortly after on October 2, 1989 inSudbury, with a press release quoting Premier Peterson "TheNeutrino Observatory will certainly place Sudbury - andindeed all of Ontario and Canada - on centre-stage in thefield of sub-atomic research."

With this Ontario contribution in hand, we then returned, inthe late autumn of 1989, to persuade the federal govern-ment, specifically Industry, Science and Technology Canada,of the need for the final $15 million of funding required togive the project the green light. The US DOE had by thistime come up with their commitment, contingent on Canadacommitting to the project and giving a deadline initially ofNovember 15, 1989. At this critical stage, Tom Davies notonly wrote a dramatic letter (including our brochure) inOctober 1989 to Prime Minister Mulroney about his govern-ment urgently needing to commit to SNO, but also he sentclose to 4000 copies across Canada -- to every MP, Senator,Ontario MPP, all CAP members, all universities and col-leges, and others on his extensive contact list. This alone wasan enormous logistical feat, indicative of the desire Sudburyhad to land "their project." Over the next several weeks we

Another key step in the process of validationof the SNO proposal was the technical andcosting review carried out in Ottawa overthree days in the autumn of 1989 by a jointCanada-US (NSERC-NRC-DOE) external com-mittee chaired by Dr. Ed Temple, an experi-enced DOE project manager. Again, the pro-posed project and the quality of the team ofscientists received a robust endorsement.

Among the highly significant benefits westressed in our presentations that the SNOproject would bring to Canada and theSudbury region were:· Leading edge fundamental research provid-

ing a showcase for Canadian science andassuring international leadership on a majorscientific frontier,

· An exceptional opportunity for postgraduatetraining and source of inspiration for youngCanadians to enter scientific and technicalcareers,

· Stretching of technologies in many areas,e.g., ultra-pure materials, mining techniquesand advanced shielding materials,

· Exceptional cost effectiveness: the main capi-tal item (heavy water) was available on loan,

· Development of a high-technology world-class laboratory in the Sudbury Region,

· Project had unique Canadian components,being led by Canadian scientists usingCanadian heavy water and being located in aCanadian mine.

The importance of attracting favourable mediacoverage for the SNO project was never over-looked. A constant steam of interviews, in English and occa-sionally in French, both national and local, by the printmedia, radio, and television during the campaign broughtthe aims of the SNO project to wider public attention. Avery useful article in support of SNO attracting internation-al attention and entitled "Getting to know the neutrino"appeared in the September 26, 1987 issue of "TheEconomist". We appeared on the CBC's "The National" inSeptember 1988. Jack Miller, then science writer for the"Toronto Star" wrote some beautiful well-considered articleson SNO, including a compelling editorial piece inSeptember 1989 (See Sidebar 2), just at the time the OntarioCabinet was deciding to commit to the project.

By the summer of 1989, despite actively pushing the case,we still had not been able to obtain the $7.6 million fromOntario. Events were not made easy, in fact they becamerather awkward, when a letter from the NSERC president tothe Ontario government enquired if Ontario might be ableto double the amount to $15 million. It was in September1989 that Ontario took a decision to commit the $7.6 millionto the project, just after an editorial piece (Sidebar 2) in the"Toronto Star" and after a chance persuasive intervention inWashington with Premier David Peterson on the outstand-

SIDEBAR 2

THE SUNDAY STAR, SEPTEMBER 24, 1989/B3

A scientific bargain

More than two kilometres deep, in a mine shaft near Sudbury, a high-powered international group of scientists wants to build a researchobservatory to detect neutrinos – the smallest form of matter in the uni-verse.

Most of the bargain-basement $55.7 million required to bring this uniqueproject to fruition has already been promised by Canadian, Americanand British universities and institutions.

What’s still needed, though, is $7.6 million from the Ontario government.If that doesn’t come through, some international money might not comeeither.

Ontario cabinet ministers and officials apparently have two concerns.One is to determine whose ministry’s budget the money should comefrom. The other is to ensure that if Ontario contributes, Ottawa – whichhas primary responsibility for basic scientific research – won’t renege.

What petty considerations for such an exciting project that has alreadybegun to bring some Canadian scientists back home while enticing for-eign scientists to Canada.

Observing that “the new wealth of nations is found between our ears,”Premier Peterson recently said we must “keep our best minds inCanada.”

A good place to start doing that is for the Ontario government to helpbuild the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.



FEATURE ARTICLE ( THE FUNDING CAMPAIGN ... )

understand some 500 letters were sent to the Prime Ministerin support of SNO.

The mid-November US deadline (linked to the US budgetcycle) came and went as we tried frantically to secure thegap in funding. It was only in early December 1989 thattwo key interventions took place. The first one was aSaturday morning breakfast meeting in Sudbury attendedby the federal Cabinet member responsible for NorthernOntario, Doug Lewis, then Transport minister, at whichlocal officials described the SNO project up as the "numberone economic priority" and cited the alarming potential ofloss of votes for the government if the project did not goforward. The second was a diplomatic intervention involv-ing the Canadian Ambassador in Washington and theScience Advisor in the White House, which, from our viewon the sidelines, miraculously seemed to unblock the fund-ing logjam in Ottawa. A Department of External Affairstelegram to the Canadian Embassy in Washington onDecember 1, 1989 stated about the SNO proposal that: "Elleest fortement appuyée de toute part et tout indique qu'elle seraacceptée par le Comité du Cabinet." This was interesting testi-mony to the sequel of this intervention, letting us know forthe first time that the green light was coming! The wholefunding package was put in place and then went to the fed-eral cabinet for approval just before Christmas 1989, where,we understand, SNO was viewed once more as an economicopportunity rather than a scientific one. There was a sigh ofrelief by all of us, when Minister of Science, WilliamWinegard, made the official announcement at a governmentpress conference held in Ottawa on January 4, 1990 that theGovernment of Canada had committed to the SNO project.

RETROSPECTIVE AND ANALYSISIt may be worthwhile to make a few comments about thedevelopment of the SNO project and the manner by whichit ultimately received funding to go forward. We thinkthere are lessons to be learned from our experience. Thewhole process of identifying the problem, carry out the fea-sibility study, then the R&D and proposal preparation, thereviews, and the search for funding took 6 years, i.e. from1984 to 1990, considerably longer than we had estimated. Ifone includes the first visits to Creighton Mine in 1983, thenit took 7 years.

The process in Canada to identify the funding was difficult,drawn out, irregular, sometimes bizarre, and ultimatelypolitical. The funding system in Canada just had no way ofhandling a request of this magnitude. One of the unexpect-ed turns, for instance, were the discussions in 1988 with thefederal government agencies that indicated it would beimportant to have a financial contribution to the projectfrom the Government of Ontario. This form of sharingcosts, sometimes now known as 'matching costs' in the spiritof the Canada Foundation for Innovation, is regarded nowas a normal way of doing business. However, back in 1988,this approach was novel. So in a sense we had to pioneerthis activity, giving briefings to MPPs, various caucuses,and senior Ontario officials. We were invited to go threetimes to Queen's Park to brief various parliamentary cau-

cuses. There was considerable reluctance on the part of theOntario government at first, but as noted above, our persist-ence eventually won out.

Another essential element was simply sheer good luck.Several well-placed individuals became strong supporters ofour cause, pitching in to organize meetings with decisionmakers and helping us with our briefings. First there werethe presidents of NRC and NSERC, at that time LarkinKerwin and Arthur May, respectively. The committed sup-port of INCO staff, at all levels, was greatly appreciated.Then there was Rhéal Bélisle, Deputy Speaker of the Senateof Canada: he represented the north of Ontario and was avaluable interlocutor in keeping us abreast of the latestdevelopments 'on the Hill'. Significantly he had impeccableaccess and used it to get us in front of people such as the USambassador. The fact of having Tom Davies in his positionas Chair of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury was agreat boon, as he worked tirelessly with us to ensure ourcase for SNO was heard at the highest levels.

It is worthwhile stressing that we only went along the lob-bying route once the very positive report of the internation-al peer review committee had been handed down, that is, inthe early fall of 1988. Going earlier down this path wouldhave been premature and inappropriate.

The SNO project was the first large project of its kind sincethe decision to build the NRU reactor at Chalk River in1953, and the TRIUMF laboratory in 1969. While the firsttwo projects were funded essentially 'top-town', the SNOproposal was really very much built up from grass roots('bottom up'). The fact that we simply sought out our owncollaborators at the working level contrasts with the nowmuch more prevalent 'dirigiste' approach in Canada tobuilding R&D collaborations. The SNO proposal arrived onthe scene when there was a policy vacuum how to deal witha request of this magnitude, in fact, in a wider sense, therewas (and still is) no centrally stated science policy forCanada. In the Canadian context, SNO was viewed as a BigScience project with a price tag beyond the capacity of anysingle federal institution to build and operate.

It is only now in 2005 that a comprehensive framework isunder development at NRC, NSERC and the recently creat-ed Office of the National Science Advisor to the PrimeMinister, for addressing the issue of Canada's involvementin Big Science projects within the overall context ofCanadian science and technology. It is envisaged that thisframework will deal with the key issues such as proposaldevelopment, evaluation, prioritization, decision-making,funding process, management, governance, and the impor-tance of consideration of full lifecycle costs. It will attemptto address how Canada's investments in large-scale scientif-ic projects can be optimized by the implementation of acoherent policy. It is intended that this framework docu-ment, after consultations with the scientific community, bebrought forward to government for implementation byDr. Arthur Carty, the National Science Advisor.

Nov05-final.qxd 28/11/2005 9:46 AM Page 350

Documents

Nov05-final.qxd 25/11/2005 12:40 PM Page 339 A ( EARLY D ......presentation created great interest in the possibilities of the proposed site, particularly since little progress was