1. Tony Noble Queen’s University Development of the SNOLAB Scientific Program

2. Tony Noble Queen’s University Science Priorities: 1.AstroParticle Physics Solar Neutrinos Dark Matter 0 υββ Supernovae Geoneutrinos 2.Other Underground Science Seismicity (PUPS) Underground biology? … e-e- e-e- e

3. Tony Noble Queen’s University First real time detection of 7 Be solar neutrinos by Borexino Borexino Collaboration Abstract This paper reports a direct measurement of the 7 Be solar neutrino signal rate performed with the Borexino low background liquid scintillator detector. This is the first real-time spectral measurement of sub-MeV solar neutrinos. The result for 0.862 MeV 7Be is 47 ± 7stat ± 12sys counts/(day · 100 ton), consistent with predictions of Standard Solar Models and neutrino oscillations with LMA-MSW parameters. Preprint submitted to Elsevier 16 August 2007 arXiv:0708.2251v1 [astro-ph] 16 Aug 2007 Congratulations to Borexino!

4.  Workshop-I: Aug.20, 2002 (Sudbury)  Scientific Discussion & Information Gathering  Workshop-II: Nov.21-22, 2002 (Ottawa)  Prospective Experiments  Infrastructure Matrices  Conceptual Layout for Underground Spaces  International Call for LOI’s - Jan.26, 2004  Established Experiment Advisory Committee  Workshop-III: May12-14, 2004 (Sudbury)  Refine Infrastructure Needs  Kick-Off Experiment Evaluation Process  Scientific Development & Process - May, 2004  Oct, 2005  Workshop-IV: Aug.15-17, 2005 (SNOLAB)  Detailed Discussions on Technical Program & Schedules  Initial Recommendations on Scientific Program  Workshop-V: Aug.21-22, 2006 (SNOLAB)  Status, Progress, and Schedule of Prospective Experiments  Work Towards an Initial Suite of Experiments  Consider Longer-Term Scientific Roadmap The development of the scientific program to date Slide from A. Hime, SNOLAB workshop 2006

5.  Some experiments being established  PICASSO  DEAP-I  SNO + actively pursuing Funds & Collaboration  Updates & Schedules for Other Prospective Experiments Discussed Here  Requested brief status reports to accompany presentations  Some Uncertainties  Many projects in a stage of R&D … Is R&D / prototyping space required?  Many projects seeking funds  Prospects and schedule for DUSEL  Need to establish appropriate forum for technical review and implementation  Technical Research Proposals will be required  Need to establish overall scientific organization of the facility Defining and Implementing an Initial Suite of Experiments & Scientific Roadmap Slide from A. Hime, SNOLAB workshop 2006

6. Tony Noble Queen’s University SNO Cavern: 2008: SNO+ SNO Utility Rm: Now: PICASSO-IB (2kg) Ladder Labs: 2 of 2008: CDMS 2009: PICASSO IIB 2009: EXO-200-Gas 2009: Majorana (TBD) SNO Control Rm: 2007: DEAP-1 South Drift: 2008: ZEPLIN-III Cube Hall: 1 of 2008: DEAP-3 2009: PICASSO-III 2009: LUX Cryopit: 1 of 2008: DEAP-3 2009: LUX 2011?: EXO 2015?: 1T GERDA 2015?: CLEAN-100T 2008:HALO Cartoon Layout Envisioned ~6 months ago

7. Tony Noble Queen’s University Endorsements made to a number of experiments: SNOLAB space committed, (pending funding, technical review…) to: SuperCDMS Majorana Zeplin Lux Prototype Space to: Picasso 32 – Operational in Utility area Deap 1 – Operational on surface. Underground soon

8. Tony Noble Queen’s University Great progress in R&D has been made. Some funding decisions have been made, so timescale to completion for experiments is better understood. New Collaborations has been forged. Zeplin III has obtained support for operations in the UK and doesn’t plan to come to come to SNOLAB for this Phase. (See talk by Tim Sumner). Initial money has become available for an early start Dusel at Homestake. Schedule & Facility scope to be determined. May be preferred location for experiments like LUX… In the past year, the scientific landscape has changed quite a bit:

9. Construction of SNOLAB nearing completion: → Siting of new experiments will begin in early 2008 The SNO Experiment is complete, and essentially decommissioned. → Existing facilities available for other uses. → Highly experienced staff available for operation of SNOLAB and support for experiments Initial operations support in hand. Anticipate funding support for five year period will be forthcoming So, with: This workshop will concentrate on getting onto the real axis, with experiments beginning installation in the coming year.

10.  Some experiments being established  PICASSO  DEAP-I  SNO + actively pursuing Funds & Collaboration  Updates & Schedules for Other Prospective Experiments Discussed Here  Requested brief status reports to accompany presentations  Some Uncertainties  Many projects in a stage of R&D … Is R&D / prototyping space required?  Many projects seeking funds  Prospects and schedule for DUSEL  Need to establish appropriate forum for technical review and implementation  Technical Research Proposals will be required  Need to establish overall scientific organization of the facility Defining and Implementing an Initial Suite of Experiments & Scientific Roadmap Slide from A. Hime, SNOLAB workshop 2006

11. SNOLAB Director A. Noble SNOLAB Experiments Advisory Committee Associate Director SNOLAB F. Duncan Technical Personnel Engineering & Design 6 PY Group Leaders in Matters of Safety Science and Technical Review Committee SNO Institute Board SNOI Director: A. McDonald SNOLAB Director of Development D. Sinclair Project Management team Administration 5 PY Science Division B. Cleveland F. Duncan R. Ford C. Jillings Operations Team: 12 PY Technicians: 8 PY IT Staff: 2 PY Outfitting & Construction: 3 PY J. Heise SNOLAB ORG CHART Scientific Executive Committee

12. Tony Noble Queen’s University 1.The committee will provide expert advice to the director on the SNOLAB scientific program. This includes: a.Initial Experimental Evaluation. This will normally be based on a Letter of Interest (LOI) submitted by the collaboration. b.Evaluation of Full Proposals requesting an allocation of space in SNOLAB c.The ongoing review of the Scientific Program and Progress of Experiments. 2.The committee will also provide recommendations on the allocation of Space and Resources for detectors. EAC Mandate (i)

13. Tony Noble Queen’s University The information provided to the committee will be in the form of a Letter of Interest, Status Reports, or a Full Proposal. In reviewing each experiment, the committee will consider:  The scientific merit of the experiment.  Research capability of the proposed collaboration.  Funding potential.  Technical feasibility. (See below also)  Match to the existing experimental program and relative priorities.  Readiness to mount the experiment.  For projects already reviewed: the ongoing scientific relevance and progress. Scientific Review (i)

14. Tony Noble Queen’s University The Process: Letter of Interest: (LOI) Liaise with SNOLAB scientists and engineering personnel when considering design elements Full Proposal: (Request for space) Liaise with SNOLAB scientists and engineering personnel to prepare for technical review Technical Review Install

15. Tony Noble Queen’s University Letter of Interest: (LOI) Reviewed by EAC: Scientific Merit: High Medium Low Reviewed by EAC: Readiness: Ready Now Ready < 2yr Not Ready

16. Tony Noble Queen’s University For a Full Proposal, the committee will consider the merit of the experiments and typically recommend that either:  The experiment should be approved and should move towards installation including a review of the safety and technical/engineering aspects of the project.  The experiment is approved provided there is adequate space and resources available. This will allow medium, and perhaps even low priority experiments to run if there is adequate space and resources in the laboratory.  The experiment is not yet approved but is encouraged to continue with R&D and funding efforts to demonstrate the feasibility of the project.  The proposed experiment is not suitable in its present configuration for inclusion in the SNOLAB program..

17. Tony Noble Queen’s University For a Status Report of a running experiment, the committee will comment on the project’s scientific progress and typically recommend that:  The experiment is making satisfactory progress and should continue  The experiment has completed its scientific mission and should move towards decommissioning.  The experiment is unlikely to reach its scientific mission and should not be approved for continued operations.  The experiment is having some difficulty reaching its scientific mission and should be asked to demonstrate progress in some particular areas in a set period of time. Ending an Experiment

18. Tony Noble Queen’s University For a Status Report of a non-running experiment that has had space committed to it, the committee will comment on the project’s scientific progress and typically recommends that:  The experiment is making satisfactory progress and should continue.  The experiment should move to a full proposal in a timely way.  The experiment is unlikely to reach its scientific mission in a timely way and space should no longer be held in reserve for this experiment.  The experiment is having some difficulty reaching its scientific mission and should be asked to demonstrate progress in some particular areas in a set period of time Releasing Reserved Space

19.  Some experiments being established  PICASSO  DEAP-I  SNO + actively pursuing Funds & Collaboration  Updates & Schedules for Other Prospective Experiments Discussed Here  Requested brief status reports to accompany presentations  Some Uncertainties  Many projects in a stage of R&D … Is R&D / prototyping space required?  Many projects seeking funds  Prospects and schedule for DUSEL  Need to establish appropriate forum for technical review and implementation  Technical Research Proposals will be required  Need to establish overall scientific organization of the facility Defining and Implementing an Initial Suite of Experiments & Scientific Roadmap Slide from A. Hime, SNOLAB workshop 2006

20. Tony Noble Queen’s University A Typical Review Mandate Can the experiment be installed, commissioned and run safely? Does it fail-safe if access to the laboratory is denied? Are interlocks adequate… Does design comply with all regulatory, Inco, and SNOI requirements for operation in the underground environment? Is installation and operation compatible with other experiments? Is there a QA plan which: identifies management structure, provides contact information for responsible people, identifies the control mechanism for technical drawings and operating procedures.

21. Tony Noble Queen’s University This is not meant to be onerous! Instead, it is meant to:  Ensure a safe working environment for all,  Provide due diligence review on behalf of our hosts, Inco  Enhance the probability of scientific success  Decrease the risk of an incident that could subsequently effect the entire lab.  In addition, we have experienced staff to help!  An engineering design group.  Operations engineers  Underground construction experts. ... Technical Review

22. Tony Noble Queen’s University Additional Resources: There is a “modest” amount of residual money in the CFI construction budget that will be used to support general infrastructure equipment for the lab. This could also be used to support some specific experiment needs of an infrastructure nature, (for example, shielding). This money, part of the directors budget, is available to all experiments to make a case for. A formal request for support should follow feasibility discussions with SNOLAB.

23. Tony Noble Queen’s University The Bottom Line We are open for business! It’s time to get on with the allocation of real space and begin the installation of the first suite of experiments. We have personnel and resources to help make this a reality!