2. Nuclear Physics New Underground Laboratories in North America Steve Elliott Los Alamos National Laboratory

3. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 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.

4. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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.

5. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 4 A Remarkably Wide Range of Science and Engineering 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

6. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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.

7. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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.

8. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 7 Some Recent Successes.

9. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 8 Underground Research has Produced Numerous Dramatic Results.

10. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 9 Why a New Lab and Why in North 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.

11. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 10 Making the Science Case for NUSEL Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) Long Range Plan 2000 - 2001 Committee on an Underground Scientific Laboratory 2000 - 2001 (Community committee, NSF & DOE, Chair: Bahcall) HEPAP Sub-panel on Long Range Planning 2000-2001 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

12. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 11 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long 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.”

13. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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.”

14. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 13 Neutrinos and Beyond: New Windows on Nature Neutrino 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.”

15. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 14 Neutrinos and Dark Matter Atmospheric s Dark Matter Double  Decay Nucleon Decay Solar Neutrinos Supernova s Long & Very Long Baseline Oscillation Expts.

16. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 15 Neutrino Properties What We Don’t Know – Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? (Majorana ) – 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? What We Know – Neutrinos have mass and oscillate – Parameters (  m 2 and tan 2  ) known but imprecisely – Neutrino masses are small 50 meV < m < 2.2 eV Neutrinos account for at least as much mass in the Universe as the visible stars

17. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 16 Depth Issues at NUSEL Experiment Requirements Ultra-low level experiments  decay, dark matter, reactor/SN/solar Great depth, modest to large size High-energy experiments Proton decay, long-baseline, atmospheric Moderate depth, large size Geophysics / Geomicrobiology 3-D from surface to great depth Heterogeneous,  T, H 2 O National Security Modest depth, small size Ultra low-level counting facility Great depth, moderate size for R&D on experiments Nuclear Physics

18. June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 17 Why Deep? SNO wouldn’t have worked at Gran Sasso or Kamioka because of cosmogenic bkgs. n’s from  induced photonuclear production in rock n’s from  DIS in rock n’s from Atm.  NC reaction Many next generation experiments must be deep to achieve their ultimate sensitivity SNO concern relevant to DM -- potential neutron backgrounds with no accompanying muon signal

19. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 18 Existing North American UG Labs Sudbury (6010 mwe) Soudan (2100 mwe) WIPP (1700 mwe)

20. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 19 WIPP DOE Facility Impressive infrastructure Modest depth (1600 mwe) Science as add-on to primary mission Low background counting lab being developed LANL-PNNL

21. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 20 Experimental Operations EXO  Project OMNISita supernova Experiment Majorana  R&D Lab

22. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 21 UG at WIPP

23. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 22 Soudan

24. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 23 UG at Soudan (MINOS construction)

25. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 24 Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Existing SNO Cavity New Hall (2005) INCO (commercial) Ni mine Restricted shaft size Deep (6010 mwe)

26. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 25 Comparison of Underground Labs

27. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 26 Proposed North American Deep UG Labs Homestake 7400 mwe Soudan 7400 mwe San Jancinto 6000 mwe

28. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 27 Distance to American Accelerator Labs FNAL BNL FNALBNL Homestake12802530 San Jacinto 26203860 Soudan7301710 WIPP17702930 kilometers One needs a large detector for VLBL experiments. The new SNOLab space isn’t large enough for something UNO- like. Want 2000-3000 km Baseline.

29. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 28 The “Also Rans”? San Jacinto, Palm Springs, CA Sobel et al., UC -Irvine Soudan Expansion Marshak et al., Univ. of Minn.

30. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 29 SNOLab: SNO Extension is FUNDED Nuclear Physics

31. June 12, 2003Steve 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 understood rock dynamics. Has been deactivated for mining. Extensive infrastructure. Allows one to simultaneously and immediately pursue an operational science program and laboratory construction Meets all key “Ideal” UG lab requirements. Haxton et al., Univ. of Washington

32. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 31 Homestake (cross-section) Oro Hondo Exhaust Ellison Exhaust No.5 Shaft Air Intake No. 4 Shaft No. 3 Shaft No. 7 Shaft Service Shaft 8000’ 7400’ 6800’ 6200’ 4850’ No. 6 Shaft Ross Shaft and Complex Science Operations Yates Shaft and Complex Mining and Operations 7400’ Labs 4850’ Labs MegaDet 8000’ EarthLab Not to scale

33. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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.

34. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 33 Homestake Science Access Ross Shaft access to 5000’ level Capacity 7 tons 1.5 m x 4m x 2.5 m Timbered, requires water lubrication Winze No. 6 access to 4850’ - 8000’ level 8.44 m 4.66 m South Cage North Cage 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” 11’ x 12 ‘ High Speed lift

35. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 34 7400’ Science Level Access via Ross and Winze #6. Centralized utilities Clean lab conditions Rn removal (1 Bq/m 3 ) Isolated separate exhaust system Ultra low-level background laboratory General purpose hall and smaller dedicated labs. Ability to expand and build future custom cavities South Skip High Speed lift Example 7400’ layout

36. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 35 Ultra Low Background Counting Facility Envisioned laboratory (Hamer, Bowles LANL) Level 1 Level 3 State of the art , , , and Rn counting Provide central infrastructure Novel, high-sensitivity counters

37. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 36 600 km of existing drifts down to great depths (8000’) A tremendous amount of existing infrastructure Large hoisting capabilities Extremely strong rock Dedicated operation of a deep u/g science laboratory Ability to take sea-containers directly u/g Ability to excavate UNO-size cavity in 2-3 years Ability to excavate large chambers at depth 15 MVA of power substations, 860,000 cfm HVAC, … Complex geology throughout site Provides ideal conditions for geoscience / geomicrobiology Minimal risk in excavation (109 yrs of experience) Location appropriate for long-baseline experiments The Homestake Site

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

39. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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”

40. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve 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

41. Nuclear Physics June 12, 2003Steve Elliott 40 I wish to congratulate the organizers for a great meeting. I especially thank them for inviting me.