U.S. Low Level Counting Facilities

Status and Plans

LRT 2004, Laurentian University Dec 12-13, 2004

Prisca CushmanUniversity of Minnesota

How do we optimize science and technology choices

before DUSEL, for DUSEL, and in addition to DUSEL?

• Screening for existing experiments (and security-related appl.)

• Underground testing of prototypes for DUSEL technology choices

• Screening for the proposed experiments

• Development of high purity materials

• Clean rooms, radon scrubbing, shielding, infrastructure

• R&D now for a future DUSEL LBCF

How can we share resources in a tight budgetary climate? How can we exploit economy of scale?

In Progress: Working Group on Low Background Counting Facilities (NSF Solicitation 1 Proposal)

First Job: Gather Information

Identify current and future needs

Sensitivity required:

Low Level vs Ultra-Low vs Extreme-Low

Type of screening:

Sample size or material

Best technique may not be “counting”

NAA (counting + radiochem lab)ICPMS, AMS ($$)RBS, PIXE, Auger, SIMS

Our first try already anticipates backlogsTurnover at 2008 reflects our ignorance

As limits improve, migration from LL UL and UL XL(this is not properly folded in)

Many of the LL category could explore other techniques

MJ R&D

MJ Prod

MJ Ops

EXO R&D

EXO Prod

EXO Ops

Cuore R&D

Cuore Prod

Cuore Ops

Moon R&D

Moon Prod

Moon Ops

SuperDMS R&D

SuperDMS Prod

SuperDMS Ops

Clean R&D

Clean Prod

Clean Ops

Xenon R&D

Xenon Prod

Xenon Ops

R&D1 R&D

R&D2 R&D

KamLAND R&D

KamLAND Prod

KamLAND Ops

Borexino R&D

Borexino Prod

Borexino Ops

UNO R&D

UNO Prod

UNO Ops

KillerAp 1 R&D

KillerAp 1 Prod

KillerAp 1 Ops

KillerAp 2 R&D

KillerAp 2 Prod

KillerAp 2 Ops

KillerAp 3 R&D

KillerAp 3 Prod

KillerAp 3 Ops

KillerAp 4 R&D

KillerAp 4 Prod

KillerAp 4 Ops

Each collaboration should define needsand then give to us…

Categories used

Gather Information – cont.

Identify existing counting facilities in the US

Analysis centers at most Universities User fees – cheaper for University faculty

Commercial LabsLonger turn around, more expensive, more standardized

“Use for Others” at most national labs (Oak Ridge, LANL, BNL)

A few shallow middle depth sites open for usersLBL Bldg72 and Oroville Dam – nowLOMO at PNNL - soon

Deep screening sites are only in development stageWIPP (MEGA )Soudan: -screening capability in SOLO

Plans to create a multi-purpose LBCF

Really, Really Deep sites are DUSEL era

DEPTH

Sensitivity for US Sites

Surface countersLBL Bldg 72,PNNL, and many other places etc.

Shielded on surface PNNL 17-A

LBNL Oroville

2000 + mweSoudan, MEGA

LoMoCF estimate

Berkeley Complex:

Surface and Shallow Site under same umbrella organization: Institute of Nuclear and Particle AstrophysicsSTAFFKevin LeskoAl SmithDick McDonaldDonna Hurley

Throughput determined by number of Ge detectors

Bldg72 has NaI counters and a 130% HPGe, Oroville has a 80% p-type HPGe

Major User: SNO (screened virgin and machined acrylic, plastic resins, PMT envelopes, internal components, stainless steel, etc.)

Also Clean room preparation and operation, sample handling procedures

Sensitivity is currently limited by detector contamination

Bldg 72 (LBL) Dam (140 mi) from LBL

PNNL – UW Complex:

Surface + 17-A ULB + new initiative at Lower Monumental Dam

• 1 hr from PNNL

• 37 meters of overburden

• Operated by US Army Corp of Engineers

Inside LoMo Counting Facility:

Currently being used as cosmogenic isolation space for copper stock and MEGA parts

Plan is to install gamma screening in lead cave. Funding is in place.

4’

1’

1’

4’ 1’1’

Wat

er

trou

gh

~8’

Person

Access

4-person elevator access Two sets of 3 HPGe counters with active cosmic veto shield

UWJ.A. FormaggioJ.F. Wilkerson

PNNLC.E. Aalseth

R.L. BrodzinskiT. HossbachH.S. MileyJ.L. Orrell

WIPP• DOE Facility

• Impressiveinfrastructure

• Modest depth(1600 mwe)

• Science asadd-on toprimary mission

• Low backgroundcounting labbeing builtMEGA-SEGA

LANL/WIPP complex: 2 connex for storage and office spaceDetector Hut and electronics room

The highlight is the MEGA detector: combination R&D for Majorana and ultra-low screener

SEGA underground by next summer (not a screener)Assembling MEGA at WIPP now.1st detector may take data by end of JanuaryCompleted in a couple years.

The major arguments for placing it at Soudan are

Availability: 40 ft x 35 ft x 100 ft experimental hall surrounded by a 99% efficient muon veto shield.

Infrastructure: The Soudan Underground Laboratory is a working science lab:

(MINOS, CDMS, SOLO gamma-screening facility)

Cost: Cheap (~ $2 M) due to existing infrastructure and working muon shield A multiple-user facility is far more cost efficient.

Self-sufficient: operating budget pays for itself Timescale: 2 years if not funding limited. Staged plan starting NOW.

Low background Screening and Prototyping Facility

at the Soudan Underground Lab

Draft Proposal at http://www.hep.umn.edu/~prisca/soudan

Last Soudan2 proton decay calorimeters (at back) were removed Nov 23rd 2004

SOLO HPGeDiode M (35%)Twin (75%)UF detector (100%)

• Four HP Ge detectors for gamma screening. Two in existing lead-shielded SOLO facility (Brown, PNNL)Third from U. Florida startup, 4th Clover Well Detector (NSF MRI)

• Two alpha/beta screeners (via alternate funding) neon gas MWPC (Caltech, CWRU, FNAL)

triggered expansion cloud chamber (UCSB, UMinn)

• Underground electroforming facility to make high purity copper(Reeves & Sons via awarded SBIR)

• Ge Detector fabrication (pending SBIR with Princeton Gamma Tech)

• Clean Machine shop

• Water tank with multiple top-loading ports in clean room on top

• Multipurpose clean room with shielded bays for prototypes

• Radon-scrubbing for all clean rooms

Full Proposal includes the following features

Ante-room Ante-room

Multi-purpose clean room

Clean room over tank

Water ports with crane

Electro form

40 ft

Upper mezzanine above tank top

Use

r sh

ield

ing

Clean room over tank

anteroomClean room

Clean room

Water tankShieldedbays

mezzanine

anteroom

radon scrubbing plenum.

stairs

current mezzanine

Muon veto shield

Muon veto shield

Muo

n ve

to s

hiel

d Muon veto shield

100 ft

Drawings and Design Consultation: Short Elliott Henderson Engineering, Inc

At Soudan, it reduces cosmogenic neutron flux to ~ 0.007 mdru

roughly equivalent to 4000 mwe cavern depth

Cost is the same as one lead castle, but it will serve multiple users.It can be upgraded (limited by water purification) or filled with Liq. Scint Provides an R&D example for DUSEL LBCF

If we build in stages, we will always use lead caves,

but the water tank advantage is:

Strategy for Soudan LBCF

• Create minimum facility now(DOE University supplements for infrastructure)

• Provide world class gamma screening via 2005 NSF MRI

• Provide novel beta screeners through CDMS collaborators (or possible MRI 2006)

• Take this next year to Increase size of collaborationAttend NSF Solicitation 1 and LRT2004

Modify design according to input and new usersThat’s You!

• Put in complete proposal next Fall ‘05

The following ongoing work has been funded

Soudan2 Removal DONE

Veto Shield refurbishingPressure tests finished, tubes repaired, preamps testedNew DAQ: Location and Time stamp (1MHz osc + GPS pps)

for every 2-plane coincidence

Clean room on Mezzanine (CDMS SiLi and BF detector)

Clean room in back of Mezzanine (Reeves electroforming & detector)

Full Project File (BOE and engineering input)

A process to accept new experiments: (fee structure, management, EPS)

EPS Signers for this winterMedtronics: cosmogenic soft memory errorsSBIR to do copper electroforming underground (Jim Reeves)2nd SBIR for a low background detector (microBq/kg) to test copper COUPP (superheated liquid bubble chamber for dark matter)

Experimental Planning Statement for the Low Background Counting FacilityA statement with the information detailed below, together with the signature sheet, must be submitted to the Soudan Underground Lab Manager before any experiment can be approved for installation in the Low Background Counting Facility. This will ensure that any new experiment does not interfere with either the of the two existing large experiments or with public tours, as well as reviewing safety and code-related issues. 1. Project Title and Description, incl. list of collaborators, institutions, and funding sources. 2. Experiment Area and Infrastructure Needs.This section should include physical area needed, both underground and on the surface, connections needed between surface and underground installations, electrical power needs, LAN bandwidth, and any special air handling requirements. There should also be list of number phone or fax lines needed. Depending on the area needed or type of the experiment, are there additional fire or life safety infrastructures needed? 3. Project ScheduleSchedule should contain any construction period needed for infrastructure, detector assembly, operation period and removal of experiment. An estimate of access (and access schedule, including on-call emergency access) should be included such that hoist costs directly related to the experiment can be properly calculated. A description of the load size and weight of the cage is available. 4. Hazard AnalyzesA complete list materials to be brought underground and waste products to be removed. Any possible physical hazards should be listed. All materials should have MSDS sheets appended to this document. Any material handling issues should also be noted. Assessment of this issues, especially the ones that fall under the safety category, need to be addressed by both the U of M and DNR who are responsible for site safety. 5. Minecrew LaborAn estimate of minecrew labor needed should include any construction or operation manpower requirements. As a general rule, all non carry-on equipment must be moved underground by the minecrew. A trained and designated cage rider must be present underground at all time if access for non-standard shifts is needed.6. Surface Space RequiredList any space usage needed in Surface Building for staging or remote operation, including control rooms and computers (there is a fiber optic connection to the underground lab). Also list any space required that cannot be accommodated inside the surface building for parking, staging or general material storage.

Project Title:____________________________________________________ Prof. Earl Peterson ______________________________________University of MinnesotaSoudan Underground Lab Director eap@mnhep.hep.umn.edu

Mr. William Miller ______________________________________University of MinnesotaSoudan Underground Lab Manager miller@sudan.umn.edu

Mr. Paul Wannarka ______________________________________ Department of Natural ResourcesSoudan Underground Mine State Park Manager paul.wannarka@dnr.state.mn.us

Dr. Regina Rameika ______________________________________Fermi National Laboratory MINOS Operations Manager rameika@fnal.gov

Dr. Dan Bauer ___________________________________________Fermi National LaboratoryCDMS II Project Manager bauer@fnal.gov

Prof. Priscilla Cushman ____________________________________University of MinnesotaManager of the Low Background Counting Facility prisca@physics.umn.edu

What should a DUSEL LBCF look like?

Soudan/WIPP are pre-DUSEL

Address screening issues NOW

Could be expanded into a DUSEL or

Used as R&D for DUSEL design

Supplement screening & prototyping in DUSEL era.

Homestake NUSL Reference Design ReportWBS 6.1 (Low-level counting facility)NUSL White Paper (Nico, Piepke, Shutt)

Figure E-16 from the Homestake Reference Design

Secure lab

Emanation and leachinglaboratory

(TBA) Pool 2Gd-loaded liq. Scint

for neutron sensitivity or

Mini-Borexino for U/Th down to 10-16 g/g

Pool 112 m cube – ultra-pure water

NAA Laboratory + general environmental sample handling

Built-in liq. Scint acrylic thimble ports read out by PMT’s

for U/Th down to 10-14 g/g

University of Minnesota Intercollegiate Grant

1. Seek out other user communities for LBCF

2. Coordinate low level counting/analysis across sites

website this springtie it to the solicitation 1 work

Examples of other user communities involved:

C. Alexander (Geology) Tritium and 14C in groundwater

C. Lungu (Environmental Health Sciences) & Minnesota Pollution Agency Radioactive environmental sampling (accidental release of radio-isotopes)Exposure assessment studies (14C as a tracer of particiulate lung burden) Epidemiological studies of uranium workers (tissue samples)

Large Lakes Observatory, The St Croix River Watershed Research Center,Florida Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife

short-lived isotopes for sediment dating

These “other” users need well-type HPGe, chemical separation, sample handling AND beta-counting applications (14C, 3H)

Conclusions and not-so-random Thoughts

Immediate need for more screening facilities – we cannot wait for DUSEL

Most samples can use shallow/shielded sites and many could use other techniques,

but a growing number require the shielding of a deep site

One-stop shopping would be very convenientsorting samples, pre-screening, follow up techniques,

cosmogenic/radon-free isolation storage

Plus: industry spin-offs (electroforming, detector development) cost effective (manpower, infrastructure, scheduling) fosters R&D and collaborative efforts

To be complete, such an analysis center should have deep capabilities.

Collaborations can use European/Asian facilities BUT backlogs still exist, local sites are convenient, small R&D efforts and non-int’l groups left out

Symbiosis possible: geology, hydrology, public health, environmental sciences are growing users of isotope analysis and dating.

Multiple Sites are a Good Thing – but some complementarity is desirable.