View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected]
Mr. William Miller ______________________________________University of MinnesotaSoudan Underground Lab Manager [email protected]
Mr. Paul Wannarka ______________________________________ Department of Natural ResourcesSoudan Underground Mine State Park Manager [email protected]
Dr. Regina Rameika ______________________________________Fermi National Laboratory MINOS Operations Manager [email protected]
Dr. Dan Bauer ___________________________________________Fermi National LaboratoryCDMS II Project Manager [email protected]
Prof. Priscilla Cushman ____________________________________University of MinnesotaManager of the Low Background Counting Facility [email protected]
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.