Underground Facilities in the USAlrt2006.in2p3.fr/talks/LRT06-Pcushman.pdf · Recommendation 2: A cross-agency Deep Science Initiative In order to broaden underground research and

Priscilla CushmanUniversity of Minnesota

LRT06, October 1-4, 2006Aussois, France 1

Underground Facilities in the USATopical Workshop on Low Radioactivity Techniques

Oct 1-4, 2006 Aussois, France

Priscilla Cushman University of Minnesota



National

Underground

Science

Laboratory

1980 - 2001

National

Underground

Science and

Engineering

Laboratory

2001 - 2003

A Short History of the US Effort to create an Underground Lab

Or .. When you are too jet-lagged to tell the difference between

Power Point and a video game.



Deep

Underground

Science and

Engineering

Laboratory

2004 and Beyond



1965-68 Solar neutrino problem exposed at HomestakeExperimental Deficit Good Solar Models

1980’s A. Mann, R. Sharpe: Propose National Lab modeled on Gran Sasso.Funding unsuccessful

1990’s Experiments get proposed & funded anyway: (e.g. MINOS, CDMS)

2000 DOE sponsors WIPP as site (EXO and MEGA site selection) NSAC long range planning begins & meetings include Underground Science Homestake Mining announces closure by end of 2001NSF calls for White Papers

2001 Bahcall Report Recommends: single primary siteDepth & infrastructure of Homestake make it appealing. Urgency.

NUSL proposal to NSF (to begin funds in 2003)Collaboration forms, technical design report for Homestake

2001-2 HEPAP Long Range PlanNSF receives (and returns) proposals from San Jacinto and Soudan

Long History of trying to fund an Underground Lab in the US



The Homestake Hiccup

Spring 2003 Barrick closes, caps, and seals mine

Nov 2004 up to 6800

Oct 2005 4850 level concept finalized $46M from state controlled sources.

Rehab plan $15M Indemnification fund: $10MOperations: $15M Contingency: $3.5M Insurance: $2.5M

May 2006 Formal transfer to South Dakota Science and Technology Authority(water will get to 4850 by mid-2007)

June 2006: Colorado Senate authorizes $20M for a surface facility for Henderson DUSEL.



Meanwhile, in March 2004

NSF begins 3-step process to create DUSEL and defines it thus:

Solicitation 1: Site Independent Proposal ($400k for travel & meetings)Chair: B. Sadoulet. One community-wide endeavor thru 2005 Define the research and infrastructure (space, power, depth …)

Solicitation 2: Proposal for engineering funds to develop a site-specificConceptual Design (due Feb ’05, drawing from the S1 work)

The best 3-5 sites will be selected to proceed to…

Solicitation 3: Preliminary Design Report and DUSEL proposal by Aug ’06



Kimballton

Soudan

SudburyHomestake

Henderson

WIPP

San Jacinto

Icicle Creek

The Field Widens: S2 participants

NSF downselects to only 2in July 2005



This decision skews the process: New Time scaleS1: Results from Site Independent study is much later

Draft of “Deep Science” posted on 9/25/06 after external reviewsTechnical documents externally reviewed, assemble now in time for Report to HEPAP by 10/12/06, High-level document by Nov 2006.

S2: Site pre-selection eliminated consideration of green field sites before any fruitful comparison could be made.Pre-selection of Henderson and Homestake 07/25/05 ($500k to each)Conceptual design reports (CDR) submitted June 2006

(Reviewed by panel, site feedback)

S3: Site SelectionRFP just posted for Preliminary Design Report (PDR)Proposals due by Dec 2006 Open to any site (new ones must include CDR)NSF Selection of one site by March 2007Draft technical report due by Dec 07 to help with MREFC process

MREFC process has startedContacts with other directorates within NSF. Potential decision by Dec 07

Earliest start date FY2010Involvement of other agencies

Common working group with DOE (ILC vs DUSEL)Multidisciplinary discussions outside NSF not yet begun



DUSEL is much more multi-disciplinary than NUSLThe propaganda goes like this…

Three Fundamental Questions that uniquely require a deep laboratory

• What is the universe made of? What is the nature of dark matter? What is dark energy? What happened to the antimatter? What are neutrinos telling us?

Particle/Nuclear Physics: Neutrinos, Proton decayAstrophysics: Dark Matter, Solar/Supernovae neutrinos

• How deeply in the earth does life extend? What makes life successful at extreme depth and temperature? What can life underground teach us about how life evolved on earth and about life on other planets?

Unprecedented opportunity for long term in situ observations

• How rock mass strength depends on length and time scales? Can we understand slippage mechanisms in high stress environment, in conditions as close as possible to tectonic faults/earthquakes?

Earth Sciences: Mechanisms behind the constant earth evolutionEngineering: rock mechanics at large scales, interplay with

hydrology/chemistry/biology



Recommendations S1 report

Recommendation 1: Strong support for deep underground science

The past decade has witnessed dramatic scientific returns from investments in physics and microbiology at great depths. Underground research is emerging as a unique and irreplaceable component of science, not only in physics and astrophysics, but also in biology, earth sciences and many disciplines of engineering. We recommend that the U.S. strengthen its research programs in subsurface sciences to become a world leader in the multidisciplinary exploration of this important new frontier.

Recommendation 2: A cross-agency Deep Science Initiative

In order to broaden underground research and maximize its scientific impact, we recommend that the U.S. science agencies collaborate to launch a multidisciplinary Deep Science Initiative. This initiative would allow the nation to focus the whole range of underground expertise on the most important scientific problems. It would aim at optimizing the use of existing or new underground facilities and at exploiting the complementary aspects of a variety of rock formations. The Deep Science Initiative should be coordinated with other national initiatives and take full advantage of international collaborationopportunities.

DOE, ILC SNOLab, ILIAS

Soudan, WIPP, Kimballton



Recommendations S1 Report

Recommendation 3: A Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

The U.S. should complement the nation’s existing assets with a flagship world-class underground laboratory providing access to very great depth (6000 mwe) and ample facilities at intermediate depths (3000 mwe) currently not available in the U.S. Such a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) should be designed to allow evolution and expansion over the next 30 to 50 years. Because of this long lifetime, the initial investment must be balanced with the operating costs. For maximum impact, the construction of DUSEL should begin as soon as possible.



Recommendations of S1 Low Background Working Group Report

Screening needs for double beta decay, solar neutrino, dark matter experiments and geomicrobiology. Based on surveys filledout by current collaborations (2005) and DUSEL working groups.

Invest in screening infrastructure at existing underground sites

Form an inter-agency task force to integrate existing sites under the DUSEL umbrella

Coordinate with ILIAS



Science Underground

DU

SE

LP

rop

ose

d

2007

-201

2 S

D s

uppo

rt



Henderson Mine(Climax Molybdenum Co.)Empire, Colorado

Homestake MineLead, South Dakota

The Central Campus + Deep Component



Initial Program: 4 phases

1) Before the excavation

Physics: R&D and low background counting facility.Earth Sciences/Engineering: Full characterization of the site with a number

of instrumented bore holes and imaging.Biology: Use of bore holes for sampling

2) During excavation

Earth Sciences/Engineering: Monitoring of rock motion, modification of stress during construction

Tests of imaging methodsBiology: Sampling ahead of excavation,



Initial Program: 4 phases3) First suite of experiments

Intermediate CampusLBCF Screening, Purification & fabrication, Ge & Cu refiningOutreach Geo/Eng: Intermediate level block experiments coordinated to lower level

+ Fracture motion experiment: Far from rest of lab! Biology observatories (coordinated to lower level)Nuclear Astrophysics Accelerator, SN burst detectorsLow vibration facilities for Atomic Molecular and Optical

and Gravitational research

Deep CampusBiology observatory andDeep Biology DrillingGeo/Eng: 3 Medium block experimentsPhysic/Astro; DM, 0νββ, Solar ν, 2 test/small exp areas

4) Design potential extensions in the first ten years

Intermediate Campus: Megaton neutrino/proton decayDeep Campus: large hall e.g for TPC



Should all this be done at one site?



Geological research is inherently multi-site-specific.

The search for exotic liferequires multiple sites

All sites have unique features

Soudan Glacial historyAncient brinesbiofilms

Kimballton Sedimentary rockOil exploration

WIPP Salt dome, security

San Jacinto seismic studies

Geo-microbes



VT-NRL facility @ Kimballton



1700 ft deep in Limestone Low Rn levelsDrive-in access 20'x40' assembly hall12'x40' office trailer8'x24' NRL lab40'x40‘ Unallocated



Initial Suite of Experiments

LENS solar neutrino prototype (pp-ν flux – charged current)

Nuclear Test Detection: Short-Lived Isotope Detection

Rock Mechanics: Amadeus (Tomography of rock faces to predict fracturing prior to blasting)

Double Beta Decay: Mo-100 Experiment moves there from Duke

Potentials:

Unique Biology: biogeochemical models for the development of the sedimentary rocks, microorganism that inhabited ancient sediments, isolate microorganisms and genes of practical use (energy production via conversion of un-minable hydrocarbons into natural gas, carbon dioxide sequestration, bioremediation, and production of bulk and fine chemicals, including pharmaceuticalsHydrology (regional aquafer studies)Transparent Earth: image rock-mass, and mine-back to confirm model



LBCF

HPGe

Cu Electroform



Neutrino Beam: MINOS, NOVA Off-axis

CDMS dark matter search

Shielded HPGe’s in constant use, screening for Xenon, Majorana, CDMS

Copper Electroforming (Reeves & Sons, LLC) and Cu screener SBIR

Medtronics soft error upset

LBCF – 4000 m3 hall entirely lined with active muon veto

Ongoing Experiments

Potentials:

Unique Biology: biofilms, ancient brine organisms, ecology

Hydrology:glacial history and ancient water, tritium dating

Limnology: Sediment studies, Large Lakes Observatory, SCWRC

Geology: Precambrium Research Center



Clean room over tankClean room

Water tank

Muon veto shieldM

uon

veto shield

Mu

on v

eto

shie

ld100 ft

mezzanine

Clean room Pb/Cu

shield

DOE funded

Structural support for MezzanineBuild Lead castle Clean room + furnitureInstall support and tubes abovePump jacksPower Feed contribution

Additional muon tubes

35 ft

Unsuccessful NSF MRI

New proposal will be submitted

Low Background Counting Facility

Tennelec LB4000 8-ch α,β counter BF (neutron) and Ortec depleted-Si (alphas)Beta Cage: Neon MWPC (Caltech & CWRU)Cu Screener from Reeves SBIR



WIPPAn engineered space, not a mine



Majorana SEGA/MEGA

EXO

LANL Detector development and screening

Ongoing Experiments

WIPP is a DOE FacilityScience as add-on to primary mission

Bioremediation, radioactive waste processing, etc.

Impressive infrastructure

Security application infrastructure already in place

Modest depth (1600 mwe)

Low radon levels, Salt dome



Conclusions

We are moving ahead, despite a slow start

The community wants an integrated approach, but NSF responds to proposals

Reduced funding Agencies (and some reviewers) see established sites as competing for the same pie

But DUSEL has a long timescale and the established sites are where

1) Actual physics is happening2) The generation of DUSEL scientists are being trained3) The materials for the experiments are being screened4) The prototypes are being tested.

Can this workshop come up with a unified response?







Documents

Underground Facilities in the USAlrt2006.in2p3.fr/talks/LRT06-Pcushman.pdf · Recommendation 2: A cross-agency Deep Science Initiative In order to broaden underground research and