1. Short Update on Deliverables K. Yokoyama M. Ishikawa Japan Atomic Energy Agency Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France1

2. Contents 1.Updates on the draft of “Comments on Covariance Data” 2.Updates on the draft of “Summary of Methodology” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France2

3. 1. Updates on the draft of “Comments on Covariance Data” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France3

4. Summary of updates on the draft of “Comments on Covariance Data” Comments by Dr. Kodeli (June 4, 2015) Information by Dr. Cabellos (June 5, 2015) Response by K. Yokoyama (June 16, 2015) Response by M. Ishikawa (July 30, 2015) Comments by Dr. Shibata (Oct 28, 2015) Update by M. Ishikawa (Oct 28, 2015) Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France4

5. Comments by Dr. Kodeli Dr. Kodeli sent an e-mail on June 4: “Dear Kenji-san, Makoto-san, As promised during the SG39 meeting I attach here few additional comments on the covariance data in addition to those already discussed in the JAEA draft report. If relevant it could be added to those already listed. In particular this concerns total nu-bar, delayed nu-bar, correlation between U8 elastic/inelastic and Fe56 inelastic.”  M. Ishikawa sent an e-mail on July 31 with an attached presentation file entitled “Response to Dr.Kodeli’s comments on the covariance draft in May 2015”  Please see the presentation file for details Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France5

6. Recommendation in the Minutes In the e-mail on July 31, Mr. Ishikawa additionally wrote below: “Further, I found one recommendation in the minutes of the last SG39 meeting below: "It was discussed the importance to include a short introduction of current methodologies in the report." According to this comment, I added "Section 2: Methodology of Covariance Evaluation" to the revised draft. Note that the contents is almost the same with Section 3.2 of the SG33 final report published in 2013. Although I tried to make it more compact, I finally gave up because this 1.5-page description is the minimum to review the current covariance evaluation methodology. If you think this duplication in the same WPEC report series is not good, please simply eliminate it.” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France6

7. Comments by Dr. Cabellos Dr. Cabellos sent an e-mail on June 5: “Dear Kenji-san FYI, I enclose some information of recent updates in nu-bar ENDFB/VII.1 I have also included an extract of two papers assessing the impact of these covariances in burnup calculations.”  K. Yokoyama sent an e-mail on June 16 Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France7

8. Response to Dr. Cabellos’ Comments (1) Information No.1 by Dr. Cabellos: “1. Recent updates in ENDFB-VII.1 covariance nu bar Pu239 https://ndclx4.bnl.gov/gf/project/endf/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk% 2Fendf7%2Fneutrons%2Fn-094_Pu_239.endf&view=log Fixed zero uncertainty in prompt nu-bar covariance matrix (MF31,MT456) at first energy point. The same fix was applied to the covariance matrix for the total nu- bar (MF31,MT452).” https://ndclx4.bnl.gov/gf/project/endf/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk% 2Fendf7%2Fneutrons%2Fn-094_Pu_239.endf&view=log  K. Yokoyama responded in the e-mail on July 16: “As for the zero uncertainty on the Pu-239 nu-bar covariance matrix, I understand that it is the zero value appeared in the lower energy range (< 10^-3eV) in Figs. 10(a) and 10(b). I hope it has no significant impact on uncertainty evaluation for fast reactors. Actually, we ignored that energy region. However, I agree that this kind of correction on the covariance data is very important.” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France8

9. Response to Dr. Cabellos’ Comments (2) Information No.2 by Dr. Cabellos: “1. Recent updates in ENDFB-VII.1 covariance nu bar U235 https://ndclx4.bnl.gov/gf/project/endf/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2 Ftrunk%2Fendf7%2Fneutrons%2Fn-092_U_235.endf&view=log Added a delayed neutron multiplicity covariance matrix (MF=31,MT=455) using a least-square fit of available data. The total neutron multiplicity covariance matrix (MF=31,MT=452) is now inferred from the prompt (MT=456) and delayed (MT=455). It fixes a problem observed with very large uncertainties in the total neutron multiplicity in the thermal and URR regions.” https://ndclx4.bnl.gov/gf/project/endf/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2 Ftrunk%2Fendf7%2Fneutrons%2Fn-092_U_235.endf&view=log  K. Yokoyama responded in the e-mail on July 16: “In addition, I completely agree with your opinion of the inconsistency of U-235 covariances between the prompt nu-bar and the total nu-bar. I think this point should be included in the SG39 report.” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France9

10. Response to Dr. Cabellos’ Comments (3) Information No.3 & No.4 by Dr. Cabellos: “The SCALE 6.0 and ENDF/B-VII.1 libraries show major differences for the important 235 U and 239 Pu fuel isotopes, and the following paragraphs address these isotopes as examples to demonstrate the need for consistent covariance data input.... (abbreviated) … It is remarkable the large uncertainty (in TENDL2012) around 10 eV for 235 U(n,fission) and 235 U(n,γ) with a relative error of 25% and 22%, respectively. For 239 Pu(n,γ) above 5 keV the uncertainty remains high with a constant value around 16%. The uncertainty for 238 U(n,n’) is below 6% and 239Pu(nu-bar) and 235 U(nu-bar) uncertainty reach a nearly constant value below 1 MeV of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively. …”  Page 4 in the presentation file entitled “Response to Dr.Kodeli’s comments on the covariance draft in May 2015”, which was sent by M. Ishikawa on July 31: “1. The current draft consists of the comments based on the comparison of JENDL-4.0 and ENDF- 7.1 covariance data. We would like to remain the SCALE series or the TENDL library et al. out of our scope, because we have no technical knowledge of the evaluation basis of their covariance data at all.” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France10

11. Comments by Dr. Shibata M. Ishikawa sent an e-mail on Oct. 28: “Dear SG39 members, Last July, I sent the Rev.1 draft on covariance data for the SG39 report. Recently, I found there exists one mistake in the draft as below: In page.2, "..... For example, in the evaluation of the J-4.0 covariance for the fission cross-section of the major actinides in the high-energy range, the variances obtained with the simultaneous least-square fitting method using the SOK code (JAEA, Ref.13) were multiplied with a factor of 2 in order to take into account the hidden correlations among measurements (Ref. 3, p.1226)." must be "..... in the high-energy range, the standard deviation (STD) values obtained with.... multiplied with a factor of 2 in order to take into account the hidden correlations among measurements (Ref. 2, pp.21-22). " This error was notified by Dr.Shibata who is the top author of JENDL-4.0. Therefore, please replace the previous draft with the attached Rev.2 version. The red characters in the WORD file are the changed parts from Rev.1.”  This revision is the latest draft of the SG39 report on “Comments on Covariance Data” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France11

12. 2. Updates on the draft of “Summary of Methodology” Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France12

13. Modifications by Prof. Salvatores Prof. Salvatores sent an e-mail on May 26: “Here in attachment you will find a revised version of the methodology deliverable with section 5.1 slightly expanded. Please feel free to make any modification you judge necessary.”  All these modifications have been merged in the latest draft. The following examples for “use of specific experiments” are included. Irradiation experiments of pure separate isotopes samples Spectrum index, and reactivity of single isotope samples Integral experiments with “flat” or “steep” adjoint flux Neutron leakage/propagation experiments Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France13

14. Modifications by Dr. Palmiotti Dr. Palmiotti sent an e-mail on May 26: “I did some modifications to the report (see attachment). Please, take a look and make all the modifications/comments you deem necessary. I have also a comment in the text. If you agree with it we can add to the narrative the corresponding consideration I have made.”  These modifications include the responses to some comments in the previous meeting. All of them have been included in the latest draft with small revisions by K. Yokoyama (e.g. addition of the definition of Cook’s distance) Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France14

15. Modifications by K. Yokoyama According to the comments in the previous meeting, K. Yokoyama modified the draft – Addition of some explanations in Section 4.3 “Interpretation of adjustment mechanism” – Corrections of formatting and typos, including the typo in Eq. (2.5) pointed out by Dr. Pelloni  The latest draft of the SG39 report on “Summary of Methodology” was sent by e-mail on Nov. 27 Dec 4, 2015WPEC SG39, Institute Curie, Paris, France15