L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan EPIPHANY Conference at Cracow “Physics in Underground Laboratories and its connection with LHC” - 6 to 8 January Fréjus site for LAGUNA Luigi Mosca CEA-Saclay and LSM-Fréjus )

Present LSM (Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane) : depth ≈ 4800 mwe, volume ≈ 3500 m 3 Main Experiments : - EDELWEISS II (Dark Matter direct detection) - NEMO 3 (Double  Decay) -- - Weak radioactivity measurements for different purposes (15 Germanium test-benches) L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 20102

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Project of a first extension of the present LSM (volume ≈ m 3 ) mainly for the next generation of Dark Matter and Double  Decay experiments

First a brief reminder of LAGUNA as a European cooperation and as an FP7 Design Study Network L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 20104

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan European Cooperation Project LAGUNA (30 Institutions in 10 countries) Grand Unification Proton Decay up to ≈ years lifetime mainly to study Supernovae (burst + “relics”) the Sun (solar ’ s ) Neutrinos from Cosmic rays (atmospheric ’ s ) the Earth (geo ’ s ) Neutrino properties accelerators (super-beam and beta-beam) and Astrophysics

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan In the LAGUNA Cooperation the main Physics goals are common, while 3 different detection techniques are proposed 3 detector types : GLACIER, LENA, and MEMPHYS, and 7 candidate sites : Boulby (UK), Fréjus (France/Italy), Umbria (Italy), LSC (Spain), Pyhäsalmi (Finland), Sunlab (Poland), Slanic (Romenia) There is a strong complementarity among the 3 detector approaches, to be better investigated inside LAGUNA

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan The 3 detectors : R&D and physics GLACIER (Liquid Argon TPC) --> Dorota Stefan talk LENA (Liquid Scintillator) --> Michael Wurm talk MEMPHYS (Water Cherenkov) -> Michela Marafini talk

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan m

An example of complementarity : L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 20109

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Km 630 Km 659 Km Bulby mine: 1050 Km SUNLAB 950 Km Unirea Salt Mine = CERN CASO Pyhhäsalmi 2300 Km

LAGUNA as an FP7 Design Study Network Four Working Packages : WP1 : Management and coordination WP2 : Underground Infrastructures and engineering (including tanks and liquids handling) WP3 : Safety and environmental and socio-economic issues WP4 : Science Impact and Outreach Main deliverable : a “conceptual design report” on the feasibility of a megaton-scale underground infrastructure to allow policy makers to define the European strategy in this field of research L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Main topics to be addressed in the feasibility study for each site and each type of experiment on the basis of their requirements : 1) determination of the best shape for very large cavities and of their possible dimensions (using simulations constrained by the knowledge of the type, structure and stress of the rock) 2) optimisation of the access to these cavities (tunnels, shafts, local bypasses, …) 3) study of the basic equipment and facilities : ventilation and air- filtering and conditioning, liquid production (if any) and transportation and continuous purification “factories” (in connection with WP3), electrical power supply, clean rooms, computing facilities, etc. 4) incorporation of the relevant safety conditions and equipments (for long term stability of the cavities, for fire, liquid leaks and evaporation risks, etc), in connection with WP3. 5) evaluation of the cost and time of realisation of the different parts of each site’s infrastructure (and also maintenance cost)

Now let us consider the study (*) (well advanced) of the Fréjus site as a candidate for the LAGUNA Project (*) by the Lombardi Company L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Km

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Example of possible location of LAGUNA detectors near the existing infrastructure LSM (1982) Road tunnel (1974 – 1978) LAGUNA detector (example with MEMPHYS) Safety tunnel (2009 – under construction) FRANCE ITALY

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan L. Mosca18 Caverns shape and dimensions for the 3 detectors candidates Volumes of excavations : GLACIER: 160'000 m 3 LENA: 111'000 m 3 MEMPHYS: 838'000 m 3 (3 caverns)

GLACIER L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

LENA L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

MEMPHYS L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan GLACIER – Final lining Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall)

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan LENA – Final lining Thickness: 0.7 m (roof and vertical wall) In vertical walls to be installed proceeding bottom-up Thickness of the lower part (20 m) increased to 1.2 m

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan MEMPHYS – Final lining Thickness: 1.5 m (roof and vertical wall), 2.3 m in the lower part (15 m)

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Roof excavation sequence (GLACIER)

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Geomechanical feasibility GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS option are all feasible at Fréjus site. The geomechanical feasibility remains valid also by a small change of the size of the excavation, both in the diameter and height of the cavern. The geomechanical conditions at Frejus are well known and further investigations are basically not required. The safety tunnel under construction will provide further information. The support system proposed guarantees the long term stability and the absence of significant time dependent displacement of the cavity. The support system proposed has sufficient reserve to ensure the stability of the cavern in case of earthquake.

Mechanical interaction with rock (MEMPHYS) FREE TANK TANK IN CONTACT WITH ROCK TOP THICKNESS 1.0 cm BOTTOM THICKNESS 15.7 cm1.0 cm STEEL MASS 11‘170 kg3‘970 kg L. Mosca27EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

Thermal interaction with rock (MEMPHYS) Solution with the insulationSolution without the insulation ROCK: T = 30°C WATER:T = 13°C HEAT ENERGY TRANSFER (Q) L. Mosca28EPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Tank feasibility and tank construction The solution with tank placed in contact with the rock mass is feasible at Fréjus site for LENA and MEMPHYS option. For GLACIER option an independent tank is preferable. The solution with tank placed in contact with the rock mass can save the amount of steel needed (7‘200 kg for MEMPHYS option, 3‘600 kg for LENA option). Both the solution with the insulation and without insulation are feasible at Fréjus site. In case of absence of water circulation in the rock mass, the solution without the insulation is preferable, from an economic point of view.

Concerning the distance of a given site from CERN two different strategies can be considered : (see Mauro Mezzetto talk) a) “short” long-baseline (with “low” energy) : - low background (absence of inelastic events) - negligible matter effect (good for a clean CP-V measurement) - “mass hierarchy” determined by atmospheric  events - feasible with the present CERN accelerators (PS and SPS) b)“long” long-baseline (with “high” energy) : - higher background due to inelastic events - “mass hierarchy” determination possible without atmospheric   but need to disentangle it from CP-Violation effects - need more important upgrade of the CERN accelerators L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan A possible schedule for a European Lab. at Fréjus Year Safety tunnel Excavation Lab cavity ExcavationPSStudy detector PM R&DPMT production Det.preparation InstallationOutside lab. Non-acc.physics P-decay, SN Superbeam Construction Superbeam betabeam Beta beam Construction decision for cavity digging decision for SPL construction decision for EURISOL site

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Conclusions and outlook - The main physics goals are common inside the LAGUNA Cooperation - The LAGUNA programme aims at otherwise inaccessible fundamental phenomena - The 3 detector approaches are complementary - LAGUNA is a European cooperation, but it is also open to the world community ! - The FRÉJUS site (at the French/Italian border) : - is the deepest in Europe (4800 mwe) - GLACIER, LENA and MEMPHYS options are all possible from the geo-mechanical point of view (optimal type of rock) at this depth - independent horizontal access via the safety tunnel (  = 8m) - the long-distance access is optimal by highways, TGVs and airports - the distance from CERN (130 Km) is OK (even if not fully optimized) for a  13 and CP-Violation strategy with a “short” long-baseline - strong support from the local authorities

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan 2010 and finally at EPIPHANY the “Magi” indicate to us the direction that we have to follow … 33

DZI  KUJ  ! L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

Back-up L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan

L. MoscaEPIPHANY Conf 6-8 Jan Neutrino Background from Power Plants based on 2008 data W.H.Trzaska on behalf of the Finnish LAGUNA Team (calculations by Kai Loo) + 77 After 2012 Measured spectra of reactor neutrinos for U-235,Pu-239 and Pu-241 were used. For U-238 calculated spectra were used. Event rates were calculated for a KamLand-type scintillator det.