**SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL**

Table of content

Berkeley workshop program

Berkeley workshop list of participants

Contributions from the working groups

**[Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory
(DUSEL)]{.smallcaps}**

**[Berkeley Workshop, August 11--14, 2004]{.smallcaps}**

# [Program]{.smallcaps}

  --------------- -------- ------------------------ ----------------- ------------------------------- -------------------- ----------------- -- --
  **Wednesday**            **11**                                     **August**                                                                

                                                                                                                                                

  8:30                     8:40                                       Welcome                                              B. Sadoulet          

  8:40                     9:40                                       Neutrinos                                            S. Freedman          

  9:40                     10:40                                      Geology/Engineering                                  D. Ellsworth         

  10:40                    11:10                                      Break                                                                     

  11:10                    12:30                                      Intro/Org Working groups                                                  

                                                                      Physics working groups                               E. Beier             

                                                                      Bio/Geo/Engineering                                  Ch. Fairhurst        

                           include:                                                                                                             
                           organization/questions                                                                                               
                           still open                                                                                                           

                           technical requirement                                                                                                
                           matrix/modules/central                                                                                               
                           facilities/edu                                                                                                       

  12:30                    13:45                                      Lunch                                                                     

  13:45                    15:45                                      Working groups 1                                                          

                                                                      Solar Neutrinos                                                           

                                                                      Neutrinoless double beta                                                  

                                                                      Long Baseline Neutrinos                                                   

                                                                      Hydrology                                                                 

                                                                      Rock mechanics                                                            

                                                                      Biogeology methods                                                        

  15:45                    16:15                                      Break                                                                     

  16:15                    18:15                                      Working groups 1                                                          

  20:30                    22:00                                      Miscellaneous groups                                                      

                                                                      Solicitation 1 proposal                              B. Sadoulet          

                                                                                                                                                

  **Thursday**    **12**                            **August**                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                

  8:30            8:45                              Solicitation 1                                    B. Sadoulet                               

  8:45            9:30                              GeoBiology                                        T. Phelps                                 

  9:30            10:15                             Proton decay                                      H. Sobel                                  

  10:15           10:45                             Break                                                                                       

  10:45           11:30                             Dark Matter and                                   D. Akerib                                 
                                                    Astrophysics                                                                                

  11:30           12:30                             Reports Working                                                                             
                                                    groups                                                                                      

                                                    10                                                                                          
                                                    minutes/working                                                                             
                                                    group                                                                                       

  12:30           13:45                             Lunch                                                                                       

  13:45           15:15                             Working groups 2                                                                            

                                                    Proton                                                                                      
                                                    Decay/atmosph.                                                                              
                                                    Neut                                                                                        

                                                    Dark Matter                                                                                 

                                                    Geochemistry                                                                                

                                                    Micr/Molecular                                                                              
                                                    Biology                                                                                     

                                                    Applications                                                                                

  15:15           15:45                             Break                                                                                       

  15:45           17:00                             Working groups 2                                                                            

  17:00           18:30                             Miscellaneous                                                                               
                                                    groups                                                                                      

                                                    Education                                         Chinowsky/Pfiffner                        

                                                    Working group                                     Sadoulet                                  
                                                    coordinators                                                                                

                                                    determinig                                                                                  
                                                    modules                                                                                     
  --------------- -------- ------------------------ ----------------- ------------------------------- -------------------- ----------------- -- --

  -------------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------------
  **Friday**     **13**    **August**                     

                                                          

  8:30           10:00     Reports Working groups         

                           10 minutes/working group       

  10:00          10:15     Modules organization           

  10:15          10:45     Break                          

  10:45          12:30     Module working groups          

                           Deep/low background            Akerib

                           Large/relatively shallow       Kropp

                           Earth science dedicated        Sonnethal

  11:30          12:30                                    

  12:30          13:45     Lunch                          

  13:45          14:45     Reports Working groups         

                           10 minutes/working group       

  14:45          15:45     Facilities Working groups      

                           Lab Layout                     Petersen

                           Support/ Surface facilities    Hulme/Sieve

                           Management                     Berley

                           Demand and international       Sadoulet

  15:45          16:15     Break                          

  16:15          17:15     Facilities Working groups      

  17:15          18:15     Reports Working groups         

                           10 minutes/working group       

  19:00          22:30     Banquet                        

                                                          

  **Saturday**   **14**    **August**                     

                                                          

  8:30           9:15      Conclusions/Physics            E. Beier

  9:15           10:00     Conclusions/Geo/bio/Eng        Ch. Fairhurst

  10:00          10:15     Break                          

  10:15          11:00     Conclusions Solicitation 1     B. Sadoulet
  -------------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------------

**[Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory]{.smallcaps}**

**[Berkeley Workshop, August 11--14, 2004]{.smallcaps}**

# [List of Participants (105)]{.smallcaps}

  --------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------
  **FIRST NAME**  **LAST NAME**      **INSTITUTION**

  Daniel          Akerib             CWRU

  Elizabeth       Arscott            UC Berkeley

  Laura           Baudis             UFlorida

  Dennis          Bazylinski         Iowa State Univ

  Eugene          Beier              Univ. Pennsylvania

  David           Berley             University of Maryland

  Fred            Bernthal           Universities Research Asso.

  Mary            Bishai             Brookhaven Nat\'l Lab.

  Robert J.       Bodnar             Virginia Tech

  Bo              Bodvarsson         LBNL

  Corale L.       Brierley           Brierley Consultancy LLC

  Paul            Brink              Stanford University

  William         Bugg               University of Tennessee

  Thomas J.       Burbey             Virginia Tech

  Frank           Calaprice          Princeton University

  Melissa         Campbell           SD Sch of Mines & Tech

  Thomas          Campbell           SD Sch of Mines & Tech

  Yuen-Dat        Chan               LBNL

  William         Chinowsky          UCB/LBNL

  Ken             Chow               LBNL

  Patrick         Chuang             Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz

  David           Cline              UCLA, Physics & Ast.

  Mark            Conrad             LBNL

  Miguel          Daal               UC Berkeley

  Syd             De Vries           Dynatec Mining Corp.

  Miland          Diwan              BNL

  Thomas          Doe                Golder Associates

  David M.        Doolin             Tinobox LLC

  Derek           Ellsworth          Pennsylvania State Univ.

  Charles         Fairhurst          University of Minnesota

  Jeff            Filipini           UC Berkeley

  Prof. Frederick Frey               Mass. Inst. Technology
  A.                                 

  S.              Friedman           UCB/LBNL

  Maochen         Ge                 Pennsylvania State Uni.

  Donald W.       Gentry             PolyMet Mining Corp.

  Leslie          Gertsch            U. Missouri-Rolla

  Jordan          Goodman            University of Maryland

  Richard J.      Gowen              SD Sci & Tech. Auth

  Bezalel         Haimson            University of Wisconsin

  Robert          Hatcher            U. Tennessee-Knoxville

  Wick            Haxton             INT, Univ. Wash.

  Terry C.        Hazen              LBNL

  John            Helsdon            S.D. Sch. Mines & Techn.

  Reyco           Henning            LBNL

  Andrew          Hime               Los Alamos Nati\'l Lab

  Gregory         Hulne              Miller Dunwiddie Architects

  Dr. P.          Ila                Mass. Inst. Technology

  Matthias        Imhof              Virginia Tech

  Chang Kee       Jung               SUNY Stonybrook

  Thomas L.       Kieft              New Mexico Inst. Min&Tec

  Thomas B. W.    Kirk               Brookhaven Nat\'l Lab

  Richard         Kroeger            Naval Research Laboratory

  William         Kropp              UC Irvine

  Mark            Kuchta             Colorado School of Mines

  Kenneth         Lande              University of Pennsylvania

  Robert          Lanou              Brown University

  Christopher     Laughton           Fermi Nat\'l Accel. Lab

  Kevin T.        Lesko              LBNL

  Philip          Long               Pacific Northwest Nat\'l Lab

  Al              Lu                 UC Berkeley

  Ernie           Majer              LBNL

  Alfred K.       Mann               Univ. Pennsylvania

  Marvin          Marshak            University of Minnesota

  C.J.            Martoff            Temple University

  Gordon          Matheson           Virginia Tech

  Matthew         Mauldon            Virginia Tech

  Dan             McKinsey           Yale University

  Douglas         Michael            Caltech

  Harry           Miley              Pacific Northwest Nat\'l Lab.

  Larry           Murdoch            Clemson University

  Misac           Nabighian          Colorado School of Mines

  Uriel           Nauenberg          University of Colorado

  Bill            Noordermeer        Office of SD State Engnr.

  Ugur            Ozbay              Colorado School of Mines

  D. Lee          Petersen           CNA Consulting Engineers

  Earl            Peterson           University of Minnesota

  Susan           Pfiffner           University of Tennessee

  Tommy J.        Phelps             Oak Ridge Nat\'l Lab

  Alan            Poon               LBNL

  Raju            Raghavan           Virginia Tech

  Regina          Rameika            Fermi Nati\'l Accelerator Lab

  William M.      Roggenthen         SD Sch. Of Mines

  Jamison         Rounds             State of South Dakota

  Bernard         Sadoulet           UC Berkeley

  Rohit           Salve              LBNL

  Gail            Schmidt            SAIC

  Kate            Scholberg          Duke University/MIT

  Benjamin C.     Shen               Univ. Calif. Riverside

  Tom             Shutt              Princeton University

  Gene            Sieve              Dunham Assoc. Con. Eng.

  David           Sinclair           Carleton University, SNOLAB

  Hank            Sobel              UC Irvine

  Abner           Soffer             Colorado State University

  Eric            Sonnenthal         LBNL

  Kyle            Sundqvist          UC Berkeley

  James           Symons             LBNL-NSD

  Walter          Toki               Colorado State University

  Roger           Turpening          Michigan Tech. Univ.

  R. Bruce        Vogelaar           Virginia Tech

  Joe             Wang               LBNL

  Herb            Wang               U. Wisconsin-Madison

  Chester (Skip)  Watts              Radford University

  Erik            Westman            Virginia Tech

  John            Wilkerson          Univ. Washington

  Paul A.         Witherspoon        LBNL
  --------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------

Contributions from the working groups

1)  **Low Energy** **Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics**

Underground Laboratories have spectacularly demonstrated their basic
importance for particle physics and astrophysics via solar neutrino
research in the last four decades via low energy (\<15 MeV) detectors
that made the fundamental discovery of neutrino oscillations. This basic
step has uncovered fertile areas with high potential for new discoveries
in particle physics and solar astrophysics. The advanced detector
technologies stimulated by this research opens new attacks on largely
open problems in the astrophysical, cosmological and geophysical
sciences as well.

*Neutrino Luminosity of the Sun: Particle Physics & Astrophysics*

The low energy (\<2MeV) solar- spectrum probes the dominant pp, ^7^Be
and CNO reactions that account for \~99.5% of the solar  output that
has never been observed directly. The full low-energy spectrum measures
the *total* *luminosity of the sun using neutrinos* (L~ν~) that
succinctly summarizes the predictions of the standard solar model (SSM).
The measured L~ν~ is thus the ultimate touchstone for the SSM and beyond
the SSM, since a comparison of L~ν~ and the total luminosity given by
photons (L~γ~) probes the very foundations of solar astrophysics. The
current global experimental data and νparameters do not constrain the
equality L~ν~=L~γ~ significantly: L~ν~(inferred from expt)/L~γ~ = 1.4
^+0.2^~-0.3~(1)^+0.7^~-0.6~(3). Thus, at 3 σ, L~ν~ could thus be as
much as 2.1 times larger or 0.8 times smaller than L~γ~. L~ν~\< L~γ~
implies a new hidden source of energy of the sun. Since the L~γ~
predates the present epoch by \~40,000 years, L~ν~\>L~γ~ implies, in
principle, a non-steady state and a hotter sun in the future. The
measured L~ν~ leads to a critical test of  physics as well, since 
physics, correct in all details, must be applied to convert the measured
fluxes to original values to make the L~ν~↔L~γ~ comparison. The major
dividends are: a definitive physics proof of LMA flavor conversion
(lacking as yet), uncovering new particle physics such as non-standard
interactions, ν magnetic moments, sterile neutrinos and CPT validity as
well as setting tight limits on the ν mixing parameters θ~~and θ~13~.
The unique role of precision (\~3%) pp (and ^7^Be) flux measurements for
particle physics and astrophysics is well recognized and prioritized
high in the 2004 APS Neutrino Study.

##### Supernova neutrinos

The flavor budget of neutrinos from live supernovae are of critical
importance to understand the yet unresolved questions of stellar
explosion models such as for supernovae. Many of the most interesting
features in the supernova neutrino "light curve" are flavor specific.
Solar-ν detectors are ideal for following ν~e~ emission while most
planned detectors for solar νs are also capable of discriminating~e~
and the flavor independent flux. Because of their low thresholds, flavor
specificity, large masses, and low backgrounds, solar-ν detectors will
likely be the only means for isolating the ν~e~ flux during the next
supernova.

*Relic neutrinos*

The occurrence of supernova that produces a  flux detectable in earth
devices is relatively rare. However, there should exist a diffuse,
isotropic background flux of relic neutrinos from all *past* Type II SN
(SNII) in the observable universe that could provide a new source of
information on the basic picture of core collapse of SNII, not only
locally, but especially at high red shifts (z\>1). The latter is vital
to test models on the rate of occurrence of SN (proportional to star
formation rate and the metal enrichment rate). The very low fluxes
currently mandate detection of only the ~e~ component of the flux. The
planned solar-ν detectors offer one of the best hopes to their
discovery, since they employ a distinctive tag to detect antineutrinos.

##### Geo-neutrinos

Models of the earth's interior are as yet far from definitive, and
recall the rudimentary pictures of the sun's interior at the beginning
of solar neutrino research. The new technology of a kiloton scale liquid
scintillation based~e~ detector is inherently sensitive to~e~ from U
and Th decay in the earth's interior, mainly located in the crust. A
global measurement of such "geo-neutrinos" with detectors at different
locations on the earth would help distinguish between several models and
provide a major advance in our knowledge of the earth's interior.

2)  **Double Beta**

# *The Importance of the Science*

The recent discoveries of neutrino oscillations, the first
demonstrations of physics beyond the standard electroweak model, provide
a compelling argument for new neutrinoless double beta decay experiments
with substantially increased sensitivity. Such decays can only occur if
neutrinos are massive Majorana particles, and hence are their own
anti-particles. The observation of this decay mode would indicate a new
form of matter and would address two additional fundamental properties
of neutrinos: their mass and lepton number conservation.

Both the lightness of neutrinos and the recent discoveries of large
solar and atmospheric mixing angles argue that the mechanism for
neutrino mass generation differs fundamentally from that of the other
(charged) fermions. The mass measured in double beta decay, the Majorana
mass, violates lepton number and is key to the most popular neutrino
mass mechanism, the seesaw. The seesaw attributes small neutrino masses
to physics residing at very high energy scales, perhaps a billion times
the energies achieved in our largest accelerators. Thus ultrasensitive
double beta decay experiments allow us to probe physics that otherwise
will remain hidden. Finally, double beta decay is a fundamental nuclear
decay for about 50 otherwise stable isotopes, and the nuclear structure
of the decay amplitude is a fascinating many-body problem.

##### Open scientific questions to be addressed in S1

There are no fundamental scientific questions that need to be addressed
before proceeding with next generation double beta decay experiments. We
currently have in hand the technology to improving existing lifetime
limits by about two orders of magnitude, but there are technical
questions as to the optimal experimental course that should be followed.
However, given the inherent difficulties of such measurements, it is
clear that there is a need to perform more than a single experiment
using a particular nucleus. We propose to build on the APS neutrino
physics study that will soon be completed. It is likely that a staged
approach will be recommended with initial 100-200 kg scale experiments
aimed at probing neutrino masses with a few hundreds of milli-eV
sensitivities. Depending on the outcome of these experiments, one would
likely proceed to either more sensitive experiments, at the 1 ton scale
and beyond, or for the case where neutrinoless double beta decay is
clearly observed, the community would likely embark on a series of
similar scale measurements in different nuclei. We intend to further
develop and deliniate the future roadmap.

##### Open Infrastructure requirement questions

Reasonable information is available from recent studies for the
infrastructure requirements for the short term upcoming generation of
100-200 kg scale experiments. However substantial work needs to be done
anticipating the needs for the next 10-20 years. In particular one must
take into account the two possible paths: many smaller experiments of
shorter duration or a few large experiments, of long duration.
Experiments must also consider and specify their tolerances to potential
environmental issues, for example mechanical sensitivity to seismic
events, and optimal depths. Finally, given the fact that the time scales
for current 100-200 kg size experiments are not necessarily compatible
with DUSEL construction time scale, the question of would existing
experiments relocate to DUSEL as they evolve to larger scale experiments
needs to be explored.

3)  **Neutrino long baseline experiments**

##### The Scientific Case for long baseline neutrino oscillations at DUSEL 

Underground experiments in the past two decades have detected neutrinos
produced in the sun and in the earth's atmosphere and have shown that
neutrinos have mass and they oscillate from one species to another as
they travel because of mixings. Solar and atmospheric neutrino
experiments have demonstrated that the mass differences between the
neutrino species are very small, on order of 10^-5^ eV^2^ and 10^-3^
eV^2^, respectively and two mixing angles θ~12~ and θ~23~ are large. The
next steps in this physics are more precise measurements of the known
mass and mixing parameters and determination of the unknown parameters
such as θ~13~, CP violating phase δ~CP~ and the ordering of the masses.
This has been described by the 2003 National Research Council's Neutrino
Facilities Assessment Committee in their report "Neutrinos and Beyond",
(<http://books.nap.edu/books/0309087163/html/70.html>). An experimental
program designed to fully explore the neutrino sector and possible new
physics will require a super neutrino beam produced by a high intensity
proton source directed towards a very massive detector (\>100 kilotons)
at a distance of \>1000 km. Such a super neutrino beam facility will
require 1 to 2 MW upgrade of existing proton accelerators at either BNL
or FNAL. Such a facility is an element of the DOE Office of Science
"Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty Year Outlook". The very
massive detector housed in DUSEL could serve a wide array of physics
topics including detection of nucleon decay, and astrophysical
neutrinos. The detector is part of the strategic plan for federal
research at the intersection of physics and astronomy described in "The
Physics of the Universe", a report from the National Science and
Technology Council, Committee on Science
([www.ostp.gov/html/physicsoftheuniverse2.pdf](http://www.ostp.gov/html/physicsoftheuniverse2.pdf)).

*Open scientific questions on which the S-1 study should focus.*

The most important scientific question is that of the length of the
baseline and the intensity and energy spectra of potential neutrino
beams from accelerator facilities at the national laboratories. Since
the timescale for the construction of DUSEL and a super neutrino beam
driven by a proton driver could extend well into the next decade, it is
essential that the physics capability of the new program be
significantly better than competing facilities and detectors. The length
of the baseline and the energy of the neutrinos determines the
experiment's sensitivity to the nodes of the oscillations, and hence the
ability to make precision measurements of the mixing parameters. We must
also study the performance of a very large, massive detector for
multiple physics purposes, in particular, accelerator neutrinos, proton
decay and supernova neutrinos. While the cost advantages of using a
single detector for multiple purposes appear obvious, the experiments
under consideration must be truly superior to any that may be done
before the DUSEL program comes on line.

*Open questions regarding infrastructure requirements on which the S-1
study should focus.*

A large multipurpose detector will need a large deep underground cavern
with corresponding additional costs compared to placing a single purpose
long baseline detector on the surface or in a shallower facility. The
size of the cavern that one can excavate will depend on the type of rock
and the desired depth. The tradeoffs between detector performance and
cost need to be studied. Limitations on cavern size may lead to
investigating the question of a single super large detector versus
multiple smaller ones. From the viewpoint of detector cost per ton, the
single larger detector will be better, but this needs to be compared
with the engineering problems of the single large cavern. Finally, one
detector technology choice (a liquid Argon based tracking detector)
being investigated may have serious safety concerns if located
underground.

4)  **Nucleon Decay/atmospheric neutrinos**

##### Theoretical Motivation 

While current experiments show that the proton lifetime exceeds about
10^33^ years, its ultimate stability has been questioned since the early
1970's in the context of theoretical attempts to arrive at an unified
picture of the fundamental particles -- the quarks and leptons -- and of
their three forces: the strong, electromagnetic and weak. These attempts
of unification, commonly referred to as "Grand Unification", have turned
out to be supported empirically by the dramatic meeting of the strengths
of the three forces. The grand unification is found to occur at high
energies in the context of so-called "Supersymmetry", as well as by the
magnitude of neutrino masses that is suggested by the discovery of
atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations. One of the most crucial and
generic predictions of grand unification, however, is that the proton
must ultimately decay into lighter particles including leptonic matter
such as a positron and a meson, revealing quark-lepton unity. From a
broader viewpoint, proton decay, if found, would provide us with a
unique window to view physics at truly short distances -- less than
10^-30^ cm., corresponding to energies greater than 10^16^ GeV -- a
feature than cannot be achieved by any other means. It would provide the
missing link of grand unification. Last, but not least, it would also
help ascertain our ideas about the origin of an excess of matter over
anti-matter that is crucial to the origin of life itself. Furthermore,
most recently, superstring theorists who dream of unifying all four
forces including gravity beyond the scope of GUT, have shown that proton
decay can occur in their theoretical frame work and predicted lifetimes
that are comparable to the traditional GUT predictions effectively
extending the importance of the proton decay research to the Plank scale
physics.

*Open Scientific Questions*

Since the lifetime of the nucleon is unknown, *a priori* (if one were to
ignore theoretical guidance), and could range from just above present
limits to many orders of magnitude greater, progress in this search must
be measured logarithmically: increases in sensitivity by factors of a
few are insufficient to motivate new experiments. Thus, continued
progress in the search for nucleon decay inevitably requires much larger
detectors. The decay modes of the nucleon are also unknown, *a priori,*
and produce quite different experimental signatures, so future detectors
must be sensitive to most or all of the kinematically allowed channels.
Moreover, the enormous mass and exposure required to improve
significantly on existing limits (and the unknowable prospects for
positive detection) underline the importance of any future experiment's
ability to address other important physics questions while waiting
forprotons to decay. Proton decay experiments have made fundamental
contributions to neutrino physics and particle astrophysics in the past,
and any future experiment must be prepared to do the same.

*Questions regarding infrastructure*

Detectors which have been proposed for the next generation includes
megaton class water Cherenkov detectors, scintillation detectors and 100
kiloton size liquid argon detectors. Each of these has its own special
infrastructure requirements. The water Cherenkov detectors require very
large cavities, the liquid scintillator detectors require special
handling and ventilation for the volatile liquids and the liquid argon
detectors require special ventilation and possible isolation in the
event of vaporization of the cryogenic liquid. In this proposal, we
intend to investigate the experimental requirements for each of the
proposed detector technologies and to specify the infrastructure that
would be required to build and operate these detectors. In this way, the
potential laboratory sites can specify how they would satisfy these
requirements in their particular site.

5)  **Dark Matter**

The discovery of dark matter is of fundamental importance to cosmology,
astrophysics and high-energy particle physics. A broad range of
observations from galaxies to superclusters, along with spectacular
confirmation from the Wilkison Microwave Anisotropy Probe of the cosmic
microwave background radiation, tell us that nearly 90% of the matter in
the universe is in some new form, different from ordinary particles. So
far, this matter has revealed itself only through gravity, and is
referred to as \"dark matter\" because it neither emits nor absorbs
light. A leading hypothesis is that the dark matter is comprised of
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, or WIMPs, that were produced
moments after the Big Bang from collisions of ordinary matter. If WIMPs
are the dark matter, then their local density in our region of the Milky
Way makes them detectable via scattering from atomic nuclei in a
terrestrial detector. However, the interaction rate is already limited
experimentally to be less than about one event per day per 10-kilograms
of detector, and theory predicts rates as much as a thousand times
lower, even for the most favored models. Detecting rates this low
requires siting experiments very deep underground to shield them from
the cosmic ray flux at the Earth\'s surface. Based on the progress of
the current generation of few-kilogram-scale experiments, and the
ton-scale experiments we envision they will grow to in the coming
decade, a new deeper site with the laboratory infrastructure and
services afforded by DUSEL will be essential.

The theoretical and observational case for WIMP dark matter is extremely
compelling, but the question of experimental confirmation remains open.
The favored candidate for a WIMP is the so-called neutralino, the
lightest neutral particle in supersymmetric extensions to the Standard
Model of particle physics. The Standard Model is a powerful theory that
describes the fundamental particles and forces, but it also appears
arbitrary in several respects. Supersymmetry (SUSY) extends the Standard
Model to address these shortcomings, and in doing so predicts the
existence of particles that are the prime quarry of the largest
experiments at Fermilab\'s Tevatron and CERN\'s Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) \-\-- and which are near-perfect WIMP candidates. The science case
will be reviewed and updated in the S-1 Study, with regard to the latest
evidence from telescopes, accelerators, and theoretical interpretations,
as well as from ongoing WIMP searches. Significantly, the Study will
address the question of how the experimental reach of anticipated
searches at DUSEL compares with the expected reach of those elsewhere,
and with the LHC, which begins its search for SUSY in 2007.

The most important question of the Study regarding WIMP searches is the
lab\'s depth. Simply put, deeper is better because a thicker overburden
better attenuates the cosmic ray muons that lead to a troublesome
background of high-energy neutrons. Because both WIMPs and neutrons have
the same signature \-- they both scatter from atomic nuclei \-- neutrons
can fake a WIMP signal. To justify and be prepared for the reduced
neutron background at DUSEL, it is necessary to assess the likely reach
of the experiments with regard to total exposure and other sources of
background. It is these capabilities that define the level to which the
neutron background should be reduced. Also, while it is difficult to
detect inbound neutrons and veto any coincident putative WIMP recoils,
it is not impossible. Therefore, the study will review the trade-off of
depth versus the complexity and reliability of external vetos, also
keeping in view the appropriate long-term capabilities of the lab. Since
the neutron background is common to all WIMP searches, the study will
examine the opportunity of the WIMP experiments co-existing in a shared
hall with a cavern-wide veto system. Other questions that the Study will
address include: the footprint, overhead space, and setup space required
for the first round of experiments; expansion space leading up to, for
example, a post-discovery WIMP \"telescope\" that could be based on a
very large time-projection chamber; special needs or safety concerns,
such as cryogens and flammables; requirements for material screening in
a low-level counting facility; and a review of the detector R&D programs
required to build these experiments.

The study will examine the exciting opportunities for an education and
outreach program that can use to strong advantage the public\'s
fascination with cosmology and advanced technology.

Finally, in conjunction with other working groups, the Study will look
beyond the envisioned dark matter experiments to other fundamental
physics questions that would benefit from the unique environment of
DUSEL. Some of the questions of interest stem from the experimental
capabilities of dark matter searches, such as coherent scattering of
neutrinos from supernovae and measuring the low-energy solar neutrino
spectrum. Other questions are related to the riddle of dark matter,
e.g., dark energy and gravity, but await specific concepts for
laboratory experiments.

6)  **Nuclear Astrophysics and underground accelerators**

One of the most important question in nuclear astrophysics is the impact
of low energy reaction processes on stellar evolution and stellar
lifetime. Stellar model simulations rely on either purely theoretical
reaction rates or the theoretical extrapolation of higher energy
measurements for these underlying nuclear processes. With one exception
none of the nuclear reaction rates have been confirmed experimentally at
the stellar energy conditions. These kind of measurements are extremely
difficult since they are handicapped by the extremely low cross section
and the large cosmic ray induced background in the detectors. An
underground low energy accelerator facility would provide the
opportunity to study low energy reaction processes of relevance for
stellar hydrogen and helium burning. A most striking recent example for
the necessity and relevance for such measurements is the recent study of
14N(*p; °*)15O which as the slowest reaction in the CNO cycles
determines the lifetime of massive main sequence stars. While this
reaction was thought to be reasonably well known in the past \[1\], a
recent experimental study at the LUNA European underground accelerator
in the Gran Sasso laboratory \[2\] has revealed a significantly lower
cross section than suspected in the beforehand not explored energy
range. This result has significant impact not only for the life span of
massive stars but also for interpretation of globular clusters and the
age of the universe \[3\]. The uncertainties in the reaction rates
impose limits on the validity of our solar model calculations through
the uncertainties in the pp-chain reactions, it leaves open the
interpretation of the CNO reactions for massive main sequence stars and
its impact on later burning phases. It questions the basis of or
description for the red giant and the asymptotic giant helium and carbon
burning phase which are the sites for the s-process responsible for the
origin of more than half of our known elements. It limits our
interpretation and understanding of rapid convection processes which
link the nucleosynthesis site deep inside the star with the stellar
atmosphere where we can observe the freshly produced elements. To
solidify our models, our interpretations, and predictions of stars and
stellar processes we have to optimize the microscopic parameters for the
nuclear engine of stars by minimizing the experimental uncertainties in
the reaction rates. While proton induced reactions are targeted by the
LUNA collaboration, *®* induced processes during stellar Helium and
Carbon burning would present the main challenge for a future US
underground accelerator facility. An underground facility would provide
the opportunity to study stellar reactions at stellar energies by
significant reduction of cosmic radiation background through passive
shielding. A working group on studying the possibilities for optimized
design of an underground accelerator has been formed and a first
workshop sponsored by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics JINA
has been quite successful in identifying the needs for the community
(www.jinaweb.org/html/jinaworkshops.html#event3). Two options on
accelerator design and needs are being debated, a high intensity light
ion machine such as LUNA \[2\] or a high intensity low energy (*·*1
MeV/amu) heavy ion accelerator in ac-mode to provide better experimental
conditions through inverse kinematics measurements. A detailed technical
design and feasibility study in collaboration with accelerator physics
groups will be necessary to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
for these two different approaches. The second important aspect will be
the development and planning on experimental detector equipment. This
has to combine high efficiency with event identification ability to
improve the background reduction conditions will be the development.
LUNA experiments have shown that this capability was crucial in all
experiments \[4\]. The working group will therefore focus on the
development of low energy recoil separation techniques, 4*1/4* Si strip
detector arrays (in close communication with RIA working groups) and of
high energy *°* tracking techniques in collaboration with the GRETA
group at Berkeley National Laboratory. References \[1\] E. J. Adelberger
et al., Review of Modern Physics 70 1265 1998 \[2\] A. Formicola et al.,
Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 507, 609 (2003) \[3\] G. Imbriani et al., Astron &
Astrophys. 420 625, (2004) \[4\] M. Junker et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 2700
(1998)

7)  **Hydrology, Coupled Processes, and Geochemistry**

> ***Hydrology***

**Neutrino Ph** Underground Laboratories have spectacularly demonstrated
their basic importance for particle physics and astrophysics via solar
neutrino research in the last four decades via low energy (\<15 MeV)
detectors that made the fundamental discovery of neutrino oscillations.
This basic step has uncovered fertile areas with high potential for new
discoveries in particle physics and solar astrophysics. The advanced
detector technologies stimulated by this research opens new attacks on
largely open problems in the astrophysical, cosmological and geophysical
sciences as well.

8)  

9)  

10) 

11) DUSEL will provide an unprecedented opportunity to perform
    experiments at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales
    (potentially on the order of a km over several decades) to evaluate
    the circulation of fluids and hydrological processes at depth in the
    Earth. This circulation is intimately linked, or 'coupled' to
    thermal, mechanical, chemical, and biological processes in the rock
    mass that may have a substantial influence on the overall system
    response. Definition of the nature of the interactions will require
    extensive controlled testing

The nature and magnitude of fluid flow and chemical transport in the
crust changes also as the scale of observation increases. This requires
geoscientists and engineers to study a complete rock mass from the
micron, or even nanoscale, to the kilometer-scale.

New techniques will need to be developed and tested to characterize and
image the rock mass mechanical properties, hydrological properties,
fluid flow paths, biological diversity, and the chemical heterogeneity
of the rock-water-gas system.

The following examples illustrate typical science modules that could be
developed in investigation of hydrology and coupled processes

-   Fluid flow and transport---meter to kilometer scale volumes aimed at
    assessing the factors and processes critical to evaluating
    quantitative understanding of movement through fractures and rock
    masses at all scales. Evaluation of fracture roughness, aperture,
    and their response to changing stress regimes is critical for
    assessing flow and transport rates, and advancing current
    understanding regarding quantification of flow at various scales.

-   Flow dynamics through and along fault zones---development of
    experiments at various scales aimed at assessing the nature and role
    of thrust faults and how they may influence flow and
    compartmentalize aquifer systems. Faults are ubiquitous in most
    crystalline and sedimentary rock environments and we must identify
    the role these features play in influencing flow and transport
    locally and at the basin scale. The nature of faults and their
    influence on flow and transport is dependent on lithology,
    structural history, diagenesis, mode of deformation, and fluid
    chemistry and temperatures.

-   Hydrocarbon reservoir analysis---Create a hydrocarbon reservoir in
    well characterized rock in kilometer scale for the purpose of better
    understanding of transport and geophysical imaging from the surface
    and boreholes, particularly along the fringes of the reservoir where
    current imaging techniques are often inadequate. The reservoir can
    be "mined" to evaluate the success of various existing and new
    imaging techniques to identify the extent of hydrocarbon reservoirs.

-   Biostimulation---Microorganisms are active in virtually all
    groundwater systems and are capable of catalyzing redox reactions
    between available chemical constituents in their environment. This
    involves shuttling electrons between electron donors and electron
    acceptors with the transformation of the parent constituent and the
    generation of intermediate and final end-products. Development of
    controlled experiments using, for example, hydrocarbons as electron
    donors can help to better quantify how microbiologically-mediated
    redox processes can control contaminant transport by varying the
    valence state of chemical constituents and thereby affecting a
    contaminant's reactivity, bioavailability, solubility, and mobility.

1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  

-   
-   
-   
-   
-   

12) **Rock Mechanics and Geophysics**

Lack of understanding of how the strength of rock masses change as a
function of scale, both in size and time (duration of loading) has been
the central problem of rock mechanics for over four decades. Since DUSEL
represents a major opportunity to address and perhaps resolve this
problem, it will be discussed in detail.[^1]

The strength of a rock mass is of concern most frequently in connection
with the design of underground excavations. As the size of a rock
structure (excavation, foundation) is increased, the in-situ behavior of
the rock becomes more and more dominated by joints and other large-
scale discontinuities (See Figure 1;left diagram) Thus, if the rock mass
behavior is to be understood it is essential to undertake large-scale
tests 'in situ'.

The gravitational and tectonic forces acting on the rock at depth are
partitioned between the 'stresses' in the solid rock and the hydrostatic
pressure of the fluid in the rock pores. Excavation changes the
distribution of the solid forces and fluid pressures, and introduces the
rock to a changed chemical environment. Subtle chemical and biological
changes at rock grain contacts ('stress corrosion'), both in the solid
rock and at contacts within joints, weaken the mass progressively[^2].
The so-called 'post-peak' region (region 3 in Figure 1), in which the
rock mass strength begins to decrease as the rock starts to disintegrate
and behave more and more as a 'discontinuum', is of most concern. The
concepts of continuum mechanics, 'stress and strain' are invalid in this
region.

The 'failing' part of the rock mass structure is surrounded by the much
larger region of rock that is responding elastically to the 'natural
forces.' Energy released as the elastic region 'unloads' with the
collapse of the failing region may be greater than the failing region
can accept. The excess energy is used to accelerate the failure process.
Depending on the scale of the collapse, this may be manifested as an
earthquake[^3] or as a rock-burst.

The loading rate may range from very high, as in blasting and nuclear
explosions, to extremely low, as in the rheological deformation
processes in plate tectonics.

DUSEL will include a considerable number of excavations of different
sizes, including some of unusually large dimensions. This provides an
exceptional opportunity to plan a comprehensive research program to
address this key rock mechanics issue, and to gain insight into the
nature of the response surface shown in Figure1,.upper right diagram

Geophysics.

Isolation from surface background 'noise' suggests that DUSEL would be a
good location for a considerable number of sensitive detection systems
such as seismological arrays for detection of earthquakes and
electromagnetic arrays for whole earth signals.

![](media/image2.pct)

Figure 1. The Complete Load-Deformation Response of a Rock Mass

Surface-based geophysical surveys of underground formations and rock
structure are used widely in exploration. Direct access to the
underground at the DUSEL provides an

opportunity to verify the accuracy of the identification of underground
structures, as derived from the surface observations, and to examine
ways to reduce inaccuracies.

Experimental study of the response of the rock mass to applied loads is
complicated by the fact that rock is 'opaque.' Instruments installed to
detect force and deformation distributions at specific points may be
installed in the wrong locations, especially when investigating the
heterogeneous post-peak deformation behavior of rock and fluid flow
through fractured rock A 'view' of the deformations, fluid flows (both
water and heat) over the entire volume of failing ground is needed.
Impressive progress in making the rock more transparent has already been
made, but using microseismic networks, tomography, and related
techniques-but more can and should be done. Again DUSEL is the ideal
laboratory to pursue these opportunities.

Considerable progress has been made in analytical and numerical
procedures to describe the 'mechanics of discontinua', but lack of field
data is the major obstacle to further progress.

DUSEL can serve the mining and civil engineering industry as a \"proving
ground\", allowing new technologies to be tried and tested before they
are exposed to the vagaries and constraints of an industrial
application.

DUSEL could also become a cornerstone component in the training of
future generations of geoscientists. Simply by visiting or working
underground, student geoscientists will have achieved a much deeper
appreciation of rock *in situ*, in all its complexity, than could ever
have been accomplished though classroom lectures alone.

13) ***Applications***

Availability of a deep underground laboratory dedicated to research in
the basic and applied geosciences will attract considerable industrial
interest. This is especially the case in the petroleum industry, which
must rely heavily on surface interpretation to assess and control the
dominantly underground procedures used in petroleum exploration and
development. DUSEL would be an ideal site, for example, for study of the
fundamental processes in hydraulic fracturing, and their control; direct
observation underground of the vibratory motion of drill bits during
cutting at the bottom of holes drilled from the surface; direct study
(in porous--permeable formations) of the efficiency of secondary and
tertiary recovery techniques. The proposal to store liquid carbon
dioxide (carbon sequestration) in underground formations could also
benefit from direct study underground-provided that the specific
formations at DUSEL are amenable to such research.

Various other suggested research applications appear in the notes from
Working Groups

7 and 9. Others will certainly be suggested as more of the earth
sciences community learns of the DUSEL proposal. The imaginative
proposal to use vertical shafts at DUSEL for study of cloud physics is a
good example of a topic that would not occur to the great majority of
earth scientists. According to the authors of this proposal "The
creation of a DUSEL would allow the construction of a cloud physics
chamber within a vertical shaft that extends for hundreds of meters.
Such a chamber would provide an environment where clouds could form
naturally (on specified aerosol distributions) and be monitored over
depths not achievable in normal laboratories. The ability to observe the
vertical variation of cloud particles sizes and interactions over larger
depths will give us the capacity to determine the details of this
transformation to precipitation for the first time.

The following examples illustrate the wide variety of applications that
have been suggested already for DUSEL. Creation of artificial
hydrocarbon accumulations or even artificial mineral deposits to study
the geochemistry of these systems; low background counting facilities
for homeland security applications: laboratories for biomedical studies
involving radiological techniques; and underground manufacturing
facilities to reduce the effect of cosmic radiation on the product.

Further discussion of the potential of DUSEL for advances in the earth
sciences and engineering can be found in the EarthLab report.
([www.earthlab.org](http://www.earthlab.org/)).

14) **Geomicrobiology**

The interactions between the biosphere and the lithosphere have been
identified as a high priority for scientific research and training by
several blue-ribbon panels (e.g., the American Academy of Microbiology,
Nealson and Ghiorse, 2001). These interactions are critically important
to understanding the earth's subsurface, which represents the largest
component volumetrically of the earth's biosphere and possibly the
majority of the earth's biomass. The full extent, diversity, and
metabolic potential of the deep biosphere remain largely unexplored. A
major attraction of DUSEL for the study of subsurface geomicrobiology is
the prospect of a dedicated research facility offering continuous,
long-term access to deep (\> 2 km) subsurface environments. Previous
studies of the subsurface have been limited to boreholes drilled from
the surface and sampling in deep mines. Boreholes yield limited sample
quantity and information, and they are limited by cost and technology to
relatively shallow depths. Sampling in deep mines is subject to the
whims of the mining companies, and sample sites are compromised by
mining and are available for only limited time. As described in the
EarthLab report to the NSF
([www.earthlab.org](http://www.earthlab.org/)), the availability of deep
subsurface sites in a government sponsored facility devoted to
scientific research will enable interdisciplinary groups of scientists
to answer fundamental questions regarding the limits of life in the
biosphere, the functioning of deep earth ecosystems, and the potential
for using deep subsurface microbes and their products to solve societal
problems.

Major research questions that can be addressed at DUSEL include (1) what
are the limits of life with regard to depth, heat, pressure, and other
parameters in the deep biosphere? (2) What are the sources of carbon and
energy for microbes in the deep subsurface? (3) Are indigenous deep
groundwater communities fueled by abiogenic energy sources (e.g., H~2~)
that are independent of surface ecosystem processes (e.g.,
photosynthesis)? (4) What adaptations do subsurface microorganisms have
for nutrient acquisition, reproduction, macromolecular stability,
survival, and repair under the extreme conditions of the deep
subsurface? (5) What are the rates of evolution in hydrogeologically
sequestered subsurface environments and what can be learned about
microbial evolution from these microbes? (6) How do microorganisms
influence the precipitation and dissolution of minerals? (7) What is the
phylogenetic and metabolic diversity of microbes in the subsurface and
what is the potential for exploiting these metabolic capabilities for
useful purposes? (8) What are the long-term effects of human activities
(e.g., mining, underground repositories, groundwater pollution) on the
deep biosphere?

The Earthlab Report describes general types of experiments to be
conducted in a deep underground facility like DUSEL. As for other
proposed geological investigations, sites with varied lithologies and
geochemistries will afford the greatest opportunities for testing deep
biosphere hypotheses. One focus of study will be a series of deep
boreholes originating at deep (2-2.5 km) underground sites and
penetrating to depths where the ambient temperature exceeds 121°C, i.e.,
to the bottom of the biosphere. The boreholes will be cored, sampled,
for groundwater, and instrumented for long-term study. The ideal site(s)
for these experiments will be pristine, unmined rock having mineralogy
and groundwater chemistry with potential for generating H~2~ and other
microbial energy sources. Sources of ancient groundwater (\> 1 Ma,
preferably \>100 Ma) will be especially useful for testing hypotheses
about ancient life and survival adaptations. Geomicrobiological studies
will begin with initial site characterization and will continue to
exploit samples of opportunity as the facility is developed. Many of the
geobiological questions will be addressed in collaboration with other
geoscientists, e.g., in coupled transport experiments carried out in
intensely sampled, highly instrumented volumes of rock that are accessed
from tunnels at multiple depths.

Nealson, K., and W. A. Ghiorse. 2001. Geobiology: Exploring the
Interface between the Biosphere and the Geosphere, American Academy for
Microbiology. <http://www.asm.org/academy/index.asp?bid=2132>

15) **Microbial biology and evolution**

The major reason for having a microbiology and molecular biology working
group is to extend the value of a deep underground laboratory to a
broader biological research community than has so far been associated
with subsurface bioscience. In doing so we have considered the fields of
systems biology as applied to microorganisms functioning under very
different constraints than typically investigated in this emerging
field, ancient molecules and molecular evolution, and advanced
technologies for exploring the niche and activity of sparse, often
energy-limited populations. This working group is coordinated with but
extends from the geobiology group to build a subcellular and
molecular-level understanding of geomicrobial populations. Geobiologists
have gained insights from exploratory investigations from boreholes and
deep mines on how these populations function, on how long they've been
isolated from the surface, and have identified many microbes in these
environments that are physiologically and phylogenetically distinct from
surface environments. Many novel physio- and phylotypes have been
isolated from deep terrestrial subsurface sediments but it remains
unclear whether this novelty is manifest at the molecular level.
Undoubtedly, the deep terrestrial subsurface will continue to yield
unique microbes and insights into the sources of energy and nutrients
that provide for their continued existence. The deep terrestrial
subsurface is aphotic and the microbial inhabitants represent "dark
life" functioning largely independent of sunlight and interactions with
eukaryotes. They depend on energy and nutrients from kerogen (ancient
organic matter), inorganic sources associated with the host rocks and
associated fluids, and a range of other abiotic sources such as H~2~
from radiolysis and hydrocarbon gases from crustal inorganic carbon
sources. Microbial populations are typically characterized as being
sparse, isolated in tiny pores, slow growing/respiring (i.e., long
doubling times), and sometimes starved or resource-limited relative to
their surface-dwelling counterparts and other times not. The deep earth,
therefore, offers a wide variety of very unique environment for studies
on microbial molecular biology because of the opportunity to access
populations that have been isolated from the surface environment for
quantifiably very long times (thousands to millions of years) and with
different resource and population constraints. Hence they provide a
particularly exciting opportunity for evolutionary studies. We envision
that a range of fundamental science inquiries could benefit from
investigations of deep terrestrial subsurface microbial populations
especially when dovetailed with fundamental geomicrobial investigations.
For example, evolution-related questions could include: Knowing how long
subsurface organisms have been separated from surface ecosystems can
evolutionary rates be quantified? Do subsurface microbes exhibit a
genomic signature characteristic of small population sizes? Is the
mutational profile, inferred from sequence analyses, distinctive,
reflecting expected differences in mutagenic processes? Do subsurface
microbes show much greater spatial structuring of populations and
smaller genetic population sizes? If so, how does this link to processes
of genome evolution? Are genomes reduced in size and "streamlined"
relative to their surface counterparts? Do the remaining genes evolve
faster or more slowly than the surface counterparts? What role do phage,
lateral gene transfer and other evolutionary mechanisms play in
evolution? How has genome content evolved in the absence of host and
higher cell densities? Do subsurface microorganisms lack signaling genes
and gene islands? How have populations adapted to a very different
stress regime since some stresses are non-existent such as UV and
oxidative stresses, heat shock, day or seasonal cycles, but other
stresses such as nutrient and energy deprivation or dehyration are
expected to be intense and exposure to low levels of
lithology-associated sources of radiation would be more or less
continuous. The biological mechanisms required for performing the
evolutionary adaptations for subsurface life are also expected to
present surprises. For example, how do cells optimize their access to
nutrient resources while avoiding pollution of their microenvironment,
how to they coordinate their biochemical capacities to succeed, do they
have special mechanisms to maintain their vital macromolecules and what
physiological energy state do they maintain?

The deep biosphere likely harbors ancient biomolecules that can provide
new insights into the early evolution of life and into organic
biosignatures preserved in ancient rocks. In the marine realm the
biogeochemical processes and the microbial ecosystem responsible for the
processes evolved during the Precambrian from a methane and sulfide
dominated environment to an oxygenated one with the advent of
photosynthesis \[Anbar, 2002 #2\]. This is arguably not the case of the
anaerobic microbial environments deep in the crust. The geochemical
processes operating in the crust have remained the same for billions of
years and it's likely that the biological interactions at work in the
early Earth are still occurring today in the deep subsurface and may
they manifest themselves in subtle molecular clues. For example, one
particularly intriguing study identified a novel group I intron in a
tRNA^Leu^(UAA) gene of a γ--*Proteobacteria* isolated from a deep
terrestrial subsurface environment by Vepritskiy et al. (2002). The
authors speculated that the deep terrestrial subsurface might select for
genome streamlining and harbor organisms with a higher probability than
their surface counterparts of retaining genetic features associated with
ancestor organisms.

The presence of subsurface microorganisms within rock has another
implication with respect to the characterization of the early evolution
of life. Organic geochemists have been recovering and characterizing
biomarkers from early Precambrian sedimentary rock and interpreting
these biomarkers as the remains of ancient life forms. It is entirely
possible that some of the biomarkers may simply be the result of
subsurface microorganisms inhabiting the rock quite recently and studies
will be required to discriminate between ancient versus modern
biomarkers present in rocks.

DUSEL could provide a unique opportunity for advanced technology that
avoids contamination of samples (this would be of vital importance to
future NASA planetary missions), for greatly improved geologic and
chemical characterization of the terrestrial subsurface habitat and for
detecting a greater breadth of biology, including novel prokaryotes as
well as the viruses and lower eukaryotes. DUSEL would also enable a
range of technical advances needed to study these populations at the
cellular and molecular levels including genome sequencing of single
cells, strategies for probing in situ physiology and electron flow,
development of in situ chemostats or push-pull bead technology for in
situ activity measures. An underground laboratory would also provide an
unprecedented opportunity for obtaining samples of sufficient biomass
for functional genomics investigations including gene expression and
proteome analyses, and develop means to sort out different states in the
live-dead continuum within populations as well as gene reporter systems
for assaying in situ activity. DUSEL would offer a range of potential
opportunities for a broad range of evolutionary, molecular and cell
biologists interested in a new and unique type of local biological
system and, especially for young scientists, could be a career
opportunity. Depending upon the site selected for DUSEL the results of
these studies would have general implications for the global subsurface
biosphere.

1**. Vepritskiy, A. A., I. A. Vitol, and S. A. Nierzwicki-Baue**r. 2002.
Novel group I intron in the tRNA(Leu)(UAA) gene of a
gamma-proteobacterium isolated from a deep subsurface environment. J.
Bacteriol**. 18**4:1481-1487.

16) **Low Background Counting Facilities and Prototyping**

*Scientific Case for LLCF in DUSEL*

The Low Level Counting Facility is a critical and cross-cutting
component of DUSEL that includes production measurement facilities and a
modest amount of reconfigurable space for R&D in low background counting
technology. Such a facility, linked with co-located underground
fabrication capability, should provide materials and controls 1000-fold
lower than a surface facility and an order of magnitude lower in
contamination and at lower total cost than the partial and unorganized
network of LLC technology available today. The current LLC technology
was developed as an adjunct to the cutting edge underground experiments
and is already insufficient for identified needs, especially access to
HPGe gamma screening. Immediate improvement in the current
infrastructure is necessary to ensure that the experiments being
designed now for DUSEL have a location in which to test their prototypes
and improved screening for their materials. This should be coordinated
with the eventual LLCF designed for DUSEL.

The production measurement facility will be capable of performing
radiometric materials screening (alpha, beta, gamma for solids, liquids,
and gases) for all major DUSEL experiments, as well as functions of
experiment calibration, quality control, DUSEL facility radiological
control and a type of pure science measurement: scientists have
identified potential uses such as ultra-sensitive radiotracer detection
for bio- and geoscience research and other critical environmental
research. The LLCF may also provide first limits on physics processes,
as happened in the case of the first double-beta decay limits. Other
users of the LLCF may include the national security research community.
A separate facility for this purpose may be prudent.

*Open Science Questions for the S-1 study:*

The most important questions about the LLCF revolve around the suite of
technologies required vs. those available. For instance, today there is
no solution for ultra-low background surface contamination analysis.
Such contamination is frequently a beta-emitter and would require new
technology to develop efficient low-background beta counting. This has
an impact on dark matter and other low-energy experiments. A major
question to answer will be the importance of screening as-built
sub-assemblies: it is common to screen components such as bulk copper or
resistors, but screening of as-built parts would be a major improvement
in quality assurance, and would drive the inclusion of CTF-like gross
counters with large part size capability. One suggestion for a wider
application of LLCF has been the measurement of impurities in cryogenic
materials used as shielding or active components of experiments,
especially to non-radiometric measurements. This could be controversial,
as some techniques for this may have no special benefit to being
underground for this measurement. However, on-site capability would
lower total experiment cost and could have broader application to
bio-geosciences, such as dating the last surface contact of an
underground water flow. Another application question has arisen related
to the use of the LLCF to advance diagnostic uses of radioisotopes in
medical science, by achieving the diagnostic benefit with little or no
biologically significant dose to the patient.

#######  Open Questions Regarding Infrastructure Requirements

A complete analysis of screening type and throughput needed for proposed
and possible DUSEL activities is required to determine the floor space,
suppression of particulates and Rn, and other infrastructure
requirements. LLCF will require clean air and because it may house some
chemical sample preparation, it may require specialized exhaust air
capability. In general, however, the LLCF will likely not require
spectacular mining, power, or other development or operational support.
Aside from common chemical hazards and moderate quantities of liquid
nitrogen for cooling germanium detectors, there should not be unusual
hazards associated with the LLCF. However, careful analysis and
enumeration of currently known hazards must establish whether this
expectation is true.

Early identification of the DUSEL activities will allow for an LLCF plan
that begins immediately, providing locations in which experiments can
test prototypes and screen prototype materials in preparation for those
DUSEL technology and science choices which cannot wait for the final
facility to be in place. A first step in this process would be the
establishment of an integrated database and scheduling tool which can
provide users with detailed information on the availability and
sensitivity of instrumentation at existing sites. This organizing entity
can eventually become the scheduling arm of the DUSEL LLCF. It will also
confirm the need for additional short term facilities and optimize their
configuration. Such a short term facility could serve as R&D for the
final LLCF at DUSEL, as well as reduce the throughput load on LLCF when
the final facility is built.

17) **Common Infrastructure and Laboratory Layout**

## Background

The Common Infrastructure and Laboratory Layout working groups were
combined just prior to the working group meetings on Friday afternoon of
the workshop. The working group meeting was led by Lee Petersen, with
assistance from Greg Hulne and Gene Sieve, and was attended by a mixed
group of physicists, bioscientists, geoscientists and geoengineers.
Several members of the site consultation group also participated.

Prior to the meeting, there was concern that the working group would
focus too quickly on layout details, rather than broad infrastructure
and layout requirements. I am pleased to report that the attendees
avoided the temptation to begin sketching layouts.

The working group meeting consisted of two parts. In the first part,
Petersen, Hulne and Sieve described for the group typical DUSEL layouts,
design rules-of-thumb and the design process. In the second part,
attendees discussed the design process, possible compatibilities and
incompatibilities, timeline issues related to construction sequence,
expansion and remodeling.

## Design Process

Determination of infrastructure requirements, modules and generic
laboratory characteristics follows naturally from the science and
engineering research program. The principal steps in the process are:

-   Collect technical requirements for the various scientific and
    engineering research to be conducted at the DUSEL

-   Identify primary technical requirements

-   Identify technical requirement relationships

-   Develop the relationship matrix

-   Develop relationship diagrams indicating modules

The middle three steps are the linkages between the technical
requirement of the first step and the module development of the last
step. Additional details may be found below.

## Infrastructure Requirement Matrix

The infrastructure requirements and other design criteria for the
various science and engineering components of the research program must
be collected from the working groups and experiment developers.
Following is a partial list of these requirements and design criteria:

-   Occupancy

-   Access from surface & from/to adjacent areas underground

-   Depth / shielding

-   Size / volume / shape of caverns

-   Environment control

-   Power, communications, lighting

-   Special systems

-   Containment

-   Common / storing / staging / assembly / prototyping

-   Rock environment

Some potential research areas have well-developed descriptions of
specific experiments, while other research areas are still in the
concept phase.

The infrastructure requirements and design criteria will be collected in
a so-called infrastructure requirement matrix. A preliminary
infrastructure requirement matrix is shown below. This matrix contains
information about six possible solar neutrino experiments and three
double beta decay experiments (all information extracted from the Lead
meeting white paper). While a single row and column matrix is probably
inadequate for representing information about all research areas and all
requirements, the example matrix illustrates the kind of information to
be collected.

An important outcome of the Berkeley workshop was a clear understanding
of the information verification needs. Previous efforts to summarize
information for physics experiments have shown that much of the
information received must be independently verified.

## Module Development

In this context, modules are groupings of experimental functions with
common or at least compatible infrastructure requirements and design
criteria. Some physics experiment commonalities are obvious (e.g. amount
of shielding, radon control and clean conditions), but determining
commonalities and incompatibilities across all science and engineering
disciplines requires a structured approach. We envision four steps:

-   Identify primary technical requirements. We anticipate that the
    infrastructure requirements matrices may contain more than 100
    requirements and criteria. Hence, we must identify, for each
    research discipline, a short list (say ten items) of primary
    technical requirements. Such primary requirements would be essential
    to the experiment, and be difficult, costly or impossible to satisfy
    unless provided in modular fashion.

-   Identify technical requirement relationships. In this step, we must
    integrate the individual experiment top ten lists into a list of
    more than ten and less than say twenty DUSEL-wide requirements. This
    integration will require close cooperation between the scientific
    working groups, PIs and engineering team.

-   Develop the relationship matrix. The relationship matrix is a
    graphical representation of the compatibilities and
    incompatibilities between experiments. Each experiment or other
    research endeavor is both a row and a column in the triangular
    relationship matrix, where each matrix entry indicates whether the
    experiments have a strong commonality, weak commonality, strong
    incompatibility, weak incompatibility or indifference.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop relationship diagrams indicating modules. Once the
    relationship matrix is created, relationship diagrams indicating
    modules will be created.

## Laboratory Layout Key Points

The following key points were discussed by the working group attendees:

-   Information verification. Previous efforts to summarize information
    for physics experiments have shown that much of the information
    received must be independently verified.

-   Multiple vs. shared caverns. This discussion was about the
    advantages and disadvantages of a DUSEL with multiple single-purpose
    caverns (like SNOLAB and Kamoika) or shared-use caverns (like Gran
    Sasso). No consensus emerged from the discussion.

-   Accelerator incompatibilities. The group consensus was that an
    accelerator was incompatible with many physics experiments.

-   Cleanliness issues. This discussion was about how to provide clean
    research areas. Should most or all of the laboratory be clean (like
    SNOLAB and the current Cascades site layout) or should only limited
    portions of the laboratory be clean? No consensus emerged from the
    discussion.

-   Earth science input necessary. The discussions clearly indicated
    that significant input from the earth science disciplines in
    necessary, in order to provide the desired research opportunities.

-   3D access for bioscience, geoscience & engineering. Discussions
    during this working group session and at other times during the
    workshop clearly indicated the need for three-dimensional access for
    the non-physics disciplines.

-   Multiple depth. The group discussed the issues of providing
    experimental spaces at multiple depths at a single facility.

-   Timeline.

-   Site characterization /review process.

## Surface Facilities

The group brainstormed the necessary surface support facilities,
producing the following list:

-   Admin/conf/office

-   Visitor ctr/classroom

-   Assembly space

-   Labs (chem, bio, rock)

-   Mat'l handling/storage

-   Computer/data hubs

-   Library/media ctr

-   Lodging/housing

-   Med/clinic

-   Mech/electrical rooms

-   Utility connections

-   Core storage

-   Support equip

-   Rock disposal, etc.

## Underground Support Services

The group brainstormed the necessary underground support facilities,
producing the following list:

-   Admin/offices

-   Locker/break/cafeteria

-   Storage

-   Computer/data hubs

-   Classrooms

-   Fab/machine shop

-   Mech/elec rooms

-   Med/clinic

-   Refuge area

-   Observation gallery

-   Labs

18) **Education and Outreach:**

Understanding our universe---the cosmos, our planet, and elementary
components of matter---is of great importance to both scientists and the
general populace. The public\'s fascination with and eagerness to learn
more about natural phenomena offer DUSEL an exceptional opportunity to
provide a unified program that integrates education and outreach (E&O)
with the multidisciplinary research accomplished at the underground
laboratory. This project has a great potential to educate and mentor the
next generation of scientists and teachers and to expand the much-needed
diversity in the workforce.

Activities and facilities for E&O should be incorporated into any DUSEL
design. Both the final report of the International Workshop on Neutrinos
and Subterranean Science (NeSS 2002) and the EarthLab Plan (2003)
emphasize the unique opportunity a deep underground laboratory presents
for developing and fostering an arena of accessible resources, in which
educators, students, and the public can experience working-science
facilities in ways that advance their knowledge and understanding of
science and technology, and change their attitudes toward learning.
Coordinated, funded education and outreach infrastructure and efforts
from the start of the project are fundamental for the development of
integrated programs.

Questions that need to be addressed are: (1) How should E&O be organized
to reach local and national communities? (2) What are the strategies for
workforce development, diversity and technology transfer? (3) What
partners are committed to engage actively in education and outreach? (4)
What is needed to bring people to the site? (5) How should local
populations and underrepresented minorities be recruited into DUSEL
science? (6) How should the underground facilities be made attractive
and stimulating to cultivate and propagate fields of science? (7) How
can tours and local housing be arranged for officials, media,
participating research students and scientists? And, (8) how should E&O
activities be designed so that they provide support in coordination,
logistics, mentorship, and materials to students, scientists, and the
community?

DUSEL will offer a truly remarkable 21^st^ century multidisciplinary
teaching, learning, and sharing community for students, teachers,
scientists, officials, legislators and the public. Programs will include
formal and informal education for K-12 and junior-college students, and
career development for the teaching staff. Inreach and exchange
activities for undergraduate and graduate students and scientists
actively participating in the research will enhance multidisciplinary
science and cultural exposure. DUSEL will aim to build educational
partnerships with universities, minority-serving institutions, schools,
industries, local populations, and other local and national
organizations. Increasing diversity in the science and education arenas
and improving public outreach should be critical goals for DUSEL. The
possible location of the site(s) in less-developed parts of the country
and/or close to Native American communities will likely enhance the
impact of the E&O programs. Outreach to the public will integrate
research and education through the use and development of digital media
(website, virtual tours, operations and experimentations), visitor
center or museum, and telecommunications to expand remote science
education and joint science experiments. Dedicated staff and
representation on the lab's Project Advisory Committee will be necessary
to support DUSEL as a multidisciplinary research and education facility
and to provide evaluation and assessment of its E&O programs. Surface
and underground facilities will be required. Such infrastructure may
include a visitor center or museum, housing, laboratories, offices,
classrooms, digital media, remote access, video-conferencing and
underground tracking. Flexibility should be key in DUSEL design and
operations to allow for E&O growth and future adjustments as DUSEL
develops in decades to come.

During the S-1 and S-2 study period in spring 2005, a DEEP Lab lecture
series at UCB is planned, with webcasting and interactive capabilities
for multi-institutional participations. Defense, Energy, Environment,
and Physics (DEEP) are components of this lecture series which aims to
contribute to the education of next-generation underground scientists
and engineers and enhance interactions among physicists and earth
scientists. Invitations will be extended to S-2 PIs of DUSEL candidate
sites to exchange information with S-1 PIs. The 15 lectures will also
include earth science Underground Research Laboratories (URLs) and other
physics underground laboratories in the U.S. and abroad to promote
national and international multi-disciplinary collaboration and
multi-agency supports.

19) **Principles of Management**

20) 

21) 

22) 

23) 

24) 

25) 

26) 

27) 

28) 

29) 

30) 

31) 

32) 

33) 

34) 

35) 

36) 

37) 

38) 

39) 

40) 

41) 

42) 

43) 

44) 

45) 

46) 

47) 

48) 

49) 

50) 

51) 

52) 

53) 

54) 

55) 

56) 

57) 

58) 

59) 

60) 

61) 

62) 

63) 

64) 

65) 

66) 

67) 

68) 

69) 

70) 

71) 

72) 

73) 

74) 

75) 

76) 

77) 

78) 

79) 

80) 

81) 

82) 

83) 

84) 

85) 

86) 

87) 

88) 

89) 

90) 

91) 

92) 

93) 

94) 

95) 

96) 

97) 

98) 

99) 

100) 

101) 

102) 

103) 

104) 

105) 

106) 

107) 

108) 

109) 

110) 

111) 

112) 

113) 

114) 

115) 

116) 

117) 

118) 

119) 

120) The management of the future underground laboratory facilities is
     site-dependent. A unique management structure can only be selected
     once the site or sites are chosen. Yet some preferences already
     exist among prospective participating scientists and some
     principles can be established now.

*Current Consensus.*

At the Berkeley Workshop on the S1 Solicitation the attendees expressed
a consensus for a management structure with certain definable
characteristics:

-   Scientists and engineers should manage the laboratory facilities.
    Also the contractor(s) operating the program should have strong ties
    to the scientific and engineering community.

-   The laboratory facilities should be open. The facilities should be
    accessible to all the scientists and engineers authorized by the
    laboratory management. Certain pockets of the facilities may be
    areas of proprietary research or government secret research perhaps
    related to homeland security. These isolated areas should not
    intrude upon the operations of other areas of the facilities nor
    should they restrict the accessibility to the scientists working
    there.

-   The facilities should employ an in-house scientific and engineering
    staff. The staff should participate in experiments and could be a
    resource of advice to the management. The staff could be a cohesive
    force among all the experiments at the facilities by serving as a
    conduit of knowledge and experience from one experiment to another.

-   Research and development of instruments should be an important
    function of the facilities. The in-house staff would serve as an
    essential element in the R&D program.

-   The facilities should also employ a staff trained in education and
    public outreach to coordinate EPO activities at the site with off
    site investigators performing experiments on site.

> *Open Questions.*

The resolution of some of the remaining open questions depends upon the
specific sites chosen but many can be resolved even before a site is
chosen.

-   As with most of the existing underground laboratories, the owner of
    the site and the operator of the laboratory are not the same. The
    interface between site owner and laboratory management are site
    dependent. Examples of functions for which one or both of these
    entities could be responsible are: the safety of personnel and
    equipment; the excavation of caves and drifts; maintenance of the
    structural integrity of excavations; drilling of boreholes and
    archiving of cores; and common services such as electricity, water,
    ventilation, communications; the operation and maintenance of the
    underground transport; the surface facilities and infrastructure.
    What are mechanisms for handling these shared responsibilities?

-   There is the possibility of multiple sites, especially at the
    beginning of the program. Should there be central management, one
    laboratory that oversees the R&D and experimental program of a large
    coordinated program?

-   Many of the underground experiments by US participants are now
    performed abroad. How should these be handled in the context of a
    growing US program? What mechanisms should be implemented for
    international cooperation?

-   It is anticipated that the research underground will be funded by
    more than one federal agency and among several disciplinary units
    within those agencies. Defining the prospective scope of the
    experiments and R&D will aid the government to organize itself to
    support this new growing field of underground research.

*Focus of the Study.*

The study will reach out to a broader community than the attendees of
the Berkeley S1 Workshop. Other workshops under this grant are
anticipated. At these workshops the consensus of the community will be
extended and the desired general characteristics of the facilities and
their management will be sharpened.

Examples of management mechanisms will be examined in detail. The study
will draw from the experience of existing underground sites and of other
large laboratories worldwide. The desirable staff requirements and the
scope of the R&D the facilities will be studied. The study will consider
an evolving management with a changing organization as the activities
change from construction project(s), to a large set of major set of
on-going experiments and development projects for future experiments.
The study will also examine the nature of international cooperation
which will also evolve as the research program matures.

BS 7 September 04 12:00 am

[^1]: Although underground excavations are made routinely, the need to
    support and stabilize them without delay does not allow the type of
    research investigations necessary to investigate the
    'load--time-size' response surface shown in the upper right diagram
    of Figure 1

[^2]: The combination of increasing tectonic forces and stress corrosion
    on fault asperity contacts can give rise to earthquakes. Collapse of
    pillars in long-abandoned underground mines is a serious and
    worsening hazard worldwide.

[^3]: Although details differ, the overall process of time-dependent
    weakening of a joint is essentially similar to that described here
    for a rock mass. Earthquakes result from unstable energy releases
    due to dynamic slip on a fault.