Underground Capabilities Working Group M. G. D. Gilchriese On behalf of the Working Group March 5, 2013

Outline Underground capabilities working group U.S. scientists underground Selected non – U.S. underground capabilities, those not covered at this DURA meeting Key U.S. decisions affecting underground capabilities in the U.S. Requests to the Cosmic Frontier and Neutrino working groups this week Organization of underground science in the U.S. and the role of DURA Discussion 2

Working Groups NAF1 – on underground facilities to support very large detectors for neutrino physics, proton decay and other science requiring detectors of the multi-kiloton scale. – NAF1 conveners: K. Heeger (Wisconsin), K. Scholberg (Duke), H. Sobel (Irvine) NAF2 – on underground facilities for dark matter experiments, neutrinoless double beta decay experiments, underground accelerators for nuclear astrophysics or other physics, low background assay of materials and related topics. – NAF2 conveners: P. Cushman (Minnesota), J. Klein (Pennsylvania), M. Witherell (Santa Barbara) Underground facilities in support of instrumentation development in both working groups – Conveners, contact with Instrumentation: P. Cushman (Minnesota), M. Gilchriese (LBNL) Neutrinos and society – Convener is A. Bernstein (LLNL), potential connections with underground capabilities. 3

General Charge 1.Assess the status and potential plans for underground facilities worldwide, with particular attention to the current and planned role of U.S. scientists; 2.Answer the following question in conjunction with the relevant Cosmic Frontier, Intensity Frontier and Instrumentation Frontier working groups – how will the existing or planned underground facilities meet the needs of US scientists and their scientific goals over the next 10 – 15 years (to about 2025)? 3.Address future U.S. organizational aspects for underground facilities 4

Working Group Activities Have asked (or in few cases will ask) for status and plans for world-wide underground facilities (also South Pole). Will be summarized in report. Quantify U.S. scientists at underground facilities. Have met by phone with heads of the four U.S. underground facilities(KURF, Soudan, SURF, WIPP) and South Pole. – Presentations to working group of status and roadmap – Thoughts on organization of U.S. underground science and facilities – will return to this at end of talk. Future activities TBD after this meeting. Planning on “Snowmass” summary document. 5

U.S. Scientists Underground Count of current U.S. heads* at underground facilities, including Antarctica. More details in backup. Roughly 1,000 U.S. heads. 6 *Duplicate heads not removed

Looking to the Future A significant growth in U.S. underground science, and thereby access to facilities, is hoped for by the U.S. community. A substantial increase of non – U.S. underground facilities is foreseen in the remainder of this decade – will describe briefly in this talk. Critical decisions in the U.S. (and outside the U.S.) will shape the future of underground facilities for U.S. scientists – will also briefly describe in this talk. Key issue – will there be U.S. underground facilities beyond about the middle of this decade? 7

Selected Topics on Non-US Will not discuss facilities already presented at this meeting. Focus will be on very brief summaries of plans for future facilities beyond those that already exist. Apologies to those that I skip. 8

Korea Proposal to expand Yanyang Underground Lab – By mid-decade, if goes forward + experiments 9

China(I) “Daya Bay II” (will have new name), multi-purpose, liquid scintillator experiment. – 20 ktonne liquid scintillator – Perhaps about 700m underground – Civil design, preparation planned to start this year. Civil construction by  2017, start operation 

China(II) Near-term expansion of China Jinping Underground Laboratory (CJPL) Take advantage of existing contractor equipment & expertise while it exists. Would be very significant expansion (factor  20) of world’s deepest lab In 3- 5 years. Seeking more information. 11 Existing Jinping Lab

India 12 India Neutrino Observatory (INO) Very large underground spaces

Europe Modane extension going ahead. Substantial increase in deep space (17,500 m 3 ). Completion by end 2015 – early

South America ANDES(Agua Negra Deep Experiment Site) Tunnel under Andes between Argentina and Chile. Although high altitude, deep site. Goal to have lab construction part of tunnel tender by end this year If so,

Key U.S. Decisions - Background The U.S. nuclear and high energy physics communities plan to make some key choices in the next few years that will influence the evolution of underground capabilities in the U.S. (and elsewhere). The dates shown here are my best guesses – not official dates from agencies or collaborations. Please correct me as required. Or if missing. Note there will be non – U.S. decisions that also affect U.S. scientists – will attempt to discuss very quickly. Again would welcome feedback at this meeting. Decisions over next 2-3 years can be informed by “Snowmass” process but already in motion. 15

Key U.S. Decisions DOE “facilities” prioritization by March 22, 2013 DIANA – Site selection among KURF, Soudan or SURF by end April – NSF review and evaluation of preliminary design by early G2 dark matter – “Downselect” by early LBNE – Underground or surface? Prior to CD-2, by  mid – CD-2 and beyond, early 2016 and later. “tonne-scale” 0  – By 2015? – Process from DOE Nuclear Science – Coordinated with OHEP R&D and support – See Prisca’s talk. Soon? Overlap of short baseline reactor and long baseline neutrino experiments with non-proliferation – Adam’s talk, session 16

Key Non – U.S. Decisions Beyond those I just described. Again, these are my opinions! Hyper-K – In 2013, Science Council of Japan (SCJ) will update the master plan of large research projects. – Roadmap of large scale research projects to be released by MEXT in – Decision on Hyper-K earliest Europe long-baseline and other expansion underground – We do not have yet a clear picture of options or decision dates – Perhaps elaboration of European strategy document will make this clearer. 17

Capabilities Questions to CF 1.Our preliminary conclusion is that existing (or already approved) underground facilities are adequate for the anticipated G2 dark matter experiments to be realized by about the middle of the decade – If this is not correct, what new facilities are needed? 2.Identify missing underground capabilities, if any, needed to support G2 experiments, but not directly associated with the experiments (assay, etc). 3.Provide a “roadmap” of underground facility/capability requirements for dark matter experiments beyond G2, under different physics assumptions (to be determined by the CF working group). – Include in this assessment underground capabilities for support of R&D for experiments beyond G2. 18

Capabilities Questions to F 1.Our preliminary conclusion is that underground facilities for approved 0  experiments with U.S. participation are adequate. – If this is not correct, what new facilities are needed? 2.Provide a “roadmap” of underground facility/capabilities requirements for 0  experiments beyond  mid-decade, under different physics assumptions (to be determined by the F working group). – Include in this underground capabilities for support of R&D for future experiments. 3.Provide a “roadmap” of underground facility/capabilities requirements for long-baseline experiments beyond  2015, under different physics assumptions (to be determined by the F working group). – Include in this underground capabilities for support of R&D for future experiments. 4.Define potential overlap and synergies of underground facilities/capabilities between short reactor and long-baseline neutrino experiments and planned non-proliferation demonstration detectors. 19

U.S. Organizational Matters To initiate discussion…… The current U.S. underground facilities are separately operated and funded (including substantial non-HEP support from a variety of sources). What is the community view about how underground facilities and capabilities in support of underground science in the U.S. should be organized in the future? What is the role of DURA in the future as it relates to underground science in the U.S. or by U.S. scientists? 20

Backup 21

U.S. Head Count Preliminary Head means counting name on collaboration or author list. Duplicates not removed! Update welcome Contact Gilchriese Or convener contact 22

Whitepapers 23 Call for White Papers The Facility Frontier group invites the submission of opinions, reviews, status reports and planned research, from individuals and organized groups in the form of white papers. These should relate information relevant to the assessment of the existing and proposed capabilities of two distinct classes: accelerator-based facilities and non-accelerator experimental facilities for particle physics research. In particular, white papers summarizing the R&D status and intended development path of individual accelerator-based and non-accelerator projects as well as table of parameters and intended performance are particularly solicited from R&D collaborations, to provide the basis for establishing broadly agreed and realistic performance figures. As much as possible please organize white papers as answers to the questions being considered by relevant sub-panel. Also limit the size of individual white papers to 2 to 3 pages if at all possible. This will greatly facilitate the synthesis of material by the writing teams. Papers submitted before 1 April are will have the greatest impact on the pre-Snowmass workshops. The submitted white papers will be made publicly available and will be forwarded to the other relevant working groups in the 2013 Community Study. Their content will be used, together with results presented in the WG meeting and subsequent discussion, as the basis of the final WG reports, which we will seek to publish refereed journals. White papers can be submitted either in pdf format and may be updated by their authors until the Minneapolis meeting. Papers should include the full list of authors, their affiliation, the of the corresponding author and the indication of the collaboration, if relevant. All received white papers will be tagged with a report and version number for subsequent reference. Please send your submissions to for accelerator based capabilities and to for non-accelerator capabilities. Please copy the appropriate sub-group conveners. We will distribute further to the working groups and post papers on the wiki. We recommend contributing the white papers by April 1; however, we will post papers submitted later. Dates of relevant pre-Snowmass workshops are on the wiki. ities All are invited to be part of the writing process. Please contact the sub-group conveners to indicate your interest in drafting the sub-group reports. There will be a pre-Snowmass writers' meeting at UC Santa Cruz on June The meeting will produce drafts for broader discussion and revision at the Snowmass meeting. Details will be posted on the wiki. -- William A. Barletta Director, US Particle Accelerator

Facilities Working Available meeting time is 12:30-2:30 Thursday See agenda for room (available to 3:30) Primary agenda item will be discussion of report and writing assignments. Discussions with CF and F during those sessions. 24