ML20071M650
Text
--
j u :-=i-:=:
.c :. -u e i
i i
TO:
Dr. Ivan Catton 1
Chair, ACRS Hermal Hydraalles Sub Commluee
' Paul Boehnert VIA:
FROM:
VX Dhir
SUBJECT:
June 3 & 4 Meeting in Idaho Falls 1
I have divided my report into two parts. The first pan summartzes the presentations m I
meeting whereas the second pan contains my observatioris on the subject matter prese mecimg.
s Meeting Sumnury he meeting started on a low note with the announcement that it was NRC resea regulatory divisions meeung and was not a public meeting. The objective of the to malte an assessment of the modifications that need to be made to the ROS simulate AP400, to agree on instranentation requirements, to develop a test matriz, up with an esumase of the cost of modifying ROSA facility. k was pointed out th ROSA IV tests was not to simulate AP400 completely but to provide credible sim nw EE*g possible design festures of AP400. ROSA IV experiments were to serve as a test mg fo W 3.
E "
@Ef INEL's description of basic differences betwoon carent PWR's and AP 6 fi m8@
ECC, no auxiliary feed water, and ecstahuname an integral part of abs passiv E
foiiewed by -a -
of ood. ammemame eds. nee. needs== d.d a syness, events phaeoanna and models; Both high endlour pressuresweserconsidead. However; ao i 4
-_._m,
1
- .:-::s-x =
-a s
- -=r
]
l 3
h k
was given as to the approach that will be followed in cases where no models exist and the time
]
i
{
frame in which these models will be operational in the code. ROSA facility is a fuU beight, full i
j pressure facility which on volume basis is 1/30th of AP.600. Its scaled power rating ts only 16%
j of the reference PWR and it is a two loop facility. Each loop has only one cold leg (as opposed i
j to two in AP 600). The existing pressurizer in ROSA IV is much shoner, the resesor vessel is i
j much taller and the steam generster tubes are much thiciter than in a scaled AP 600.
i j
Three levels of modification to ROSA IV were considered to make it more prototypical.
At the first level the modifications include addition of: one CMT, pressure belance imes, one set
)
of ADS, PRHR. a reduced loop seal. changed upper head flow path and area, and addition of an j
accumulator stand pipe. The modifications at the second level involve addition of: a scaied i
j pressunzer, a surge line a nd scaled hot legs. At the third level the modifications are: two CMT's i
and splitting of the cold legs. Results of several AP400 and ROSA IV (with first or second level of modifications) transients using RELAP code were presemed. Although from the results for i
j three inch break in cold leg it was concluded that magnitudes of mass Dow rates and tuning were j
j different, the phenomena were similar. It should be pointed that several scale and configuranon I
differences exist that may affect time and magnitude. Pesic mass Sow rate ont of CMT was i
}
higher than that for AP-600. Cold les mass Sow rata, downcomer haation ruta and integrated i
i ADS mass flow rats aner acmados of 3rd stage ADS, were much lower in ROSA.IV as j
compared scaled AP 600. ROSA-IV had higher subcooling of water in the vessel. This led to I
j significandy lower vapor generados rass; Also, because. ROSA vessel is seladwely taller, large
]
mass inventory was left in the vessel especially aber sedvenion of 3 d abase of ADS. Addition I
j of scaled pressaiser and sures lies did not changelbe ROSkresponse signiscessly. Scaled bot 1
1 l
g
M :- Cf-I!C~
. :.A
- tE
- 5 -.
!egs, however, lead to improvement in ADS third and fourth stage response.
For a one inch cold leg break and with only tirst level of modiEcations, sign:5 cant differences in phenomena and event riming was observed in comparison to AP-600. Key differences occurred in the upper head and pressurizer response. The fluid temperature and vapor generanon rate in ROSA were higher than those in a scaled AP 600. "Re core outlet temperature in ROSA did not show an oscillatory behavior observed in AP440. The same can be said with respect to the response of liquid level in the steam generator and the pressuruer. Without showmg any results it was suggested that addition of a full height pressuruar (second level modi 6 cation) would improve the comparison.
With first level of modifications, sequences of major events for steam generator one and three tube rupture in both ROSA and scaled AP 600 were found to be comparable. h was concluded that to have correct friction losses ECC lines should be scaled. Also, flow stagnation in the affected loop probably resulted from pressurizer being shorter.
For the break in the pressure balance line, a comparison between scaled AP-600 and ROSA IV with one CMT, and 2 CMT's with and without vessel upper head modifications was made. With only one CMT, ROSA resulted in atypical respoone both for the affected and the unaffected CMT in AP 600. '!his included no rectrealadon (in the unaffected CMT of AP 600) and early flourout of the CMT (afEscoed CMT of AP 600) la the ROSA simulation. Because of much smaller ikrir ares between upper beed and the dowooomer, abe core heat up was observed in ROSA. Hw.-. with first level madineadaa (upper head) core best up in ROSA was eliminated. Although addhian of second CMT allowed simulation of asyeometries, distortion in phenomena was observed. One probable contributor to the dianortion was she split conSguration 3
l
.:-::1-::::..
E i
cf the cold leg.
For the matn steam line break. differences exist between ROSA and simulated AP.600 j structural hest transfer rate. These differences among others lead to large differences m collapsed liquid !cvel in the intact steam generator and in the pressurizer. Intermediate and long term i
pnmary pressure response is also affected.
Costs for the three levels of modifications as well as for a given item were prended by l
- he JAERI personnel. For the vanous options discussed (with single cold leg for each loop and con prototypical hot leg), the total cost for modi 6 cations will approach around $6 million. This does not include the amount that will be needed to change the loop seal or to climinate it and
$1 millon for additional instrumentation. According to my assessment, the facility cost will run as high a 37 8 million. JAERI appears to be reluctant to make any new opemng in the vessel.
It will take about 15 months to complete the modifications. A total of twelve experiments are proposed to be performed on the ROSA facility. These include 1".3",6', and two very small breaks in the cold leg; steam generator tube rupture (1 tube and 3 tubes); breaks in PBL (shear break, break at pressurizer and a 3" break); main steam line break and a 100% break in the vessel safety injection line. Prioritization of various tests was discussed but no final determination was made. The sequence in which ROSA expenments will be done will depend on the results from SPES facdity and on the convenience of JAERL Instrumentados that will be used in abs OdT's cold les pressee balance line, safety injecsion system PRHR(primary and secondary side), pressuriast, and downcomer was described.
Typical instruments that will be used are TC's for temperature, transducers for pressure differentials, turbine flow meters for flow rate, and gammerdensitoasesr for void fraction.
4
T
- : -::i-:::.-
,s g -.:
Measurement of two phase mass flow rate will include use of 13 beam gamma de:snometer. l
\\
a drag disc and a tuttine flow meter. ROSA facility does have some exisung instrumentation but cost of additional instruments may be as much as 51 million.
Personnel from NRC contracts division were present at the meeting and discussions were held as to how soon they could put the contract with JAERI in place. Before the meeting was closed to individuals other than INEL and research and regulatory division personnel.
)
Wesunghouse was asked to inform NRC if they disagreed with any of the modifications (1st,2nd j
j
\\
and 3rd level without splitnag of the cold legs, properly scaled hot legs, and reduced loop seal etc.)
I l
OBSERVATIONS 1.
Earlier we had no high pressure facility. Now we have two. Westinghouse will conduct experiments on SPES and NRC on ROSA. I do not have any information on SPES, hence, can not make an assessment as to bow the experiments on the two facilities will complement each other. In any event if NRC and Westinghouse are going to use the same low pressure facility (Oregon State) why can't they do the same for the high pressure facility?
2.
At least-according 2 INEL, the ROSA facility is being considered because of absence of a scaled AP 600 integral faculty. Why not argua for a totally scaled facility if that is what is needed to understand complex phenomena under ECCS injecdon, to demonstrats long term cootability, and to assess the codes?
.:-::i-::::
E
- 5 :--
1 It is stated that because of complex interactions and unique phenomena involved in AP-600. code enhancement and code assessment is needed. But at the same time the code (REIAPS) is being exercised to show the adequacy of the ROSA facility with respect to AP-600. The argument is circular and defies logic.
4.
The total cost of modifying and instrumenting the facility may be as much as $8 million.
Even with this cost the facillry will be non prototypical (taller reactor vessel, single cold leg per loop, non scaled hot leg. higher friction in the piping, thicker structures and tubes in the steam generator and presence of a loop seal etc.) These differences will distort the phenomena timing of events and magnitude of system variables (pressure, void fraction, liquid inventory and
~
temperatures). Also, there is no certainty that the facility will be available beyond the current set of experiments.
5.
A total of 12 erperiments are planned to be g' med in ROSA facility. As an experimentalist, I do know that because of a variety of reasons (e.g. mal-functioning of key instruments ambiguity in phenomena assessment etc.) exp.t-. cat must be re run. I do not know what the proviasons are for running the same experiments again. It is also not clear if the ROSA i
facility will be available after the 12 experunents are completed.
6.
Including the costs.of running the RELAP code over a three year period to stimulate.
ROSA testa, the coes per run may be of the order of 5800,000 to 31 million. Here one must assena ibe cost to beneSt ratio.
6
=
- . :-;:+-::::.:_-
'E
. := : - :
I 7
It is my understanding that ROSA facility will initially depressurize only up to activation of 3rd stage ADS. As a result imtial conditions for the system to depressurize to the fourth stage l
1 (for comparison of results from the low pressure facility) will be lost.
3.
Total cost of ROSA and SPES may be of the order of 15 million. Why not have in the l
U.S. one dedicated scaled facility owned jointly by Westinghouse and NRC for about the same l
cost?
9.
Finally, I believe that experiments always enhance our understanding of the physical t
processes. ROSA is no exception to it. However, one has to weight abe costa assinst the benedia.
Considering the fact that several non prototypicalities exist in ROSA (even after most of level,
- 1. 2 & 3 modi 5 cations are made), the facilit'y is not dedicated and only a limited number of tests will be performed at a substantial cost, I would have preferred to have a single protypical high pressure facility shared by both Westingbouse and NRC This would have also eliminated the need for the SPES facility which is planned to be used by Westingbouse.
\\
a J
i l
7
~
./
V.ScArock L'NIVERSITt OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY anxnn. o Avs. svINE. u25 ANCEUs. CVERS[DE. SAN DGCO. 5 AN DUWC25CD 5ANTA B AASAAA
- 5 ANT A CW2 i
COLLEGE OF ENCINEERINC BERKELEY, calif 0RNIA 94720 DEPARTMENTOFNUCLEAR ENCINEERING j
TELEPHONE: (510) 642 & 10 FAX.
(5101643-9685 4
i Dr. Ivan Catton. Chairman
'lhermalHydraubes Sut-x duce Advisory Cornannee on Reactor Safeguanis US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 j
Re: NRC RES & NRR / INEL / JAERI Joint Meenng on AP-600 IST. June 3&4,1992 Dear Ivan.
]
j The meeting was chaired by Dr. Brian Sheron. The parnes were KES and their consultants Peter Griffith and Brent Boyak NRC Contracts,INEL JAERI. and a
Westinghouse. Observers from ETEC EPRI, and DOE ID as well as the three ACRS consultants were also present. (The anendance list is attached.) In opening the meeting, 1
Dr. Sheron noted that it was not an open meeting and that discussion / questions would be I
hmited to those seated at the table (RES, INEL, Westinghouse, and JAERI). He did, however, occasionally ask if observers had any quesnons cr comments.
The purpose of the meeting was to review ROSA - IV design changes for the NRC AP - 600 IST prognm and to reach agreement on instrumentanon and the test mamx. In j
his opening remerb Dr. Sheron explained that it was not the intent of the program to j
achieve full mmrdanan of the AP - 600. The purpose of the ROSA IV ew uaits is to
)
obtain large scale test data, including the pb-a expected in AP -600, for use in code l
validanon. He gave a brief histancal review of the SEMISCALE and MIST programs.
M. Ortiz, J. M. Cel, J. E. Fisher and S. M. Sloss of INEL presented results of RELAP 5 MOD 2.5 al~1=% of responses of AP -600 and ROSA - IV in selected transients. MOD 2.5 was used because of problems with MOD 3, however they think i
MOD 3 problems have been resolved and are now to use it. Ortiz described an in-house INEL PIRT study in the context of code assessment needs. B. Boyack was enocal of the PIRT report he had seen. Ortiz staaed that it was only a draft and will be 4d Omz hlfhbfV -
Page ;
potnted out that ROS A - IV is 1/48 scale of PWR and 1/30 (16%) of AP -600. ROSA has only one CMT compared with 2 in AP - 600. Orn:' slide # 18 summarized the " levels"(l st. 2nd & 3rd) of ROS A - IV mndtfications. Sheron had already commened that the Sysem modificanons had aheady been pretty well decided in precursor meetings of the pnncipal parues. Based on the draft PIRT and system study, representanve transients were chosen as follows:
- 3 inch breakin coldleg
- 1 inch breakin coldIcg
- 3 inch break in Pressure Balance Line (PBL)
- SGTR - 1 rube
- SIUR - 3 tubes
- MSL break
)
Cozzuol presented the comparison calculations for the two cold breaks. He concluded that level one modifications would be sufficient for 3 inch break simulation
)
(qualitative ) of AP - 600 for system response and passive safety feanne behavior. For the 1 inch break. ROSA - IV and AP -600 would be different. He suggested that
=,t.ifi= ice of upper head flow paths and addition of full length pressurtmer would improve the sienanna "Ibere was considerable discussion on both imms. 'Ibere are obviously modelling problems related to the upper heads in these systems. In addition ROSA is much higher than AP-600 and there will be dihhy makmg the flow paths in ROSA typical Dr. Shockin argued that it is not necessary to change ibe pressurizer height because it does not change the phenomena involved. 'Ibe otmous problem here is that the process being pursued assumes that RELAP 5 is capable of capmrtag the phenamaan in both systems. An example of where this may be untrue is the mixag that could be caused by jetting of the seam into CMT with consequent rapid enadaanarina This potentially important phenomenon is not well madallad in RELAP 5, in my opinion. Suppose it is not seen in ROSA - IV. This would petmde no assurance that it will not be important in AP -
600. The atypical tube wall thicime== in ROSA - IV SG was also cied as a reason to modify the SG.
Pisher presensed the conyerisons for SG1Rs. Collapsed liquid levels are quite different. The CMT drains fasssein ROSA. Sheron is concerned about over611 while Hochreiter says they never get over61L Level one madineariaan will be =>#Waar to preserve the phaaamana but results wiB be more typicat if ECC lines are madifiad to give correct friction losses and the scaled pressuriser is added.
Pace 3 Sandra Sloan presented the PBL break restilts. Results look smnlar but she notes that this is fortuitous since the causes are different. Use of a single CMT causes atypical condensation in PBL This looks like a major ptoblem. Cold leg geometry differences also appear important. Core hearup is calculated for ROSA but not seen m AP - 600. The second CMT is needed for this scenano. The enlargement of upper head flow paths is needed for this scenano.
Cozzuoi reviewed the companson for the MSLB. Concludes that the level one mnd* sons are adequar but the simulanon would be improved with that addition of the full length SG.
Omz presented the overallINEL conclusions. A copy is appended to this report.
D. Bessert presented the proposed sest matrix (copy attached). Phase 1 included 12 tesu in four general categories. Phase II would consist of 6-12 tests to be identified as phase I results become available. They might be repeat ests orinvesupse beyond DBA scenarios. During the discussion P. Gnffith suggested using a scheme based upon void fraccon. A. Levine said it would be dangescus so omit the smgle phase part of the transient because what happens in two phase depends on how you got there. He also suggessed a priority rankmg and mndMcanon of the test matnx. I'm not clear on whether his suggesnons were ad=ad Dunng this diermeion JAERIindicand that they planned to put the steam from the ADS to drive a enndanang jet pump. This has the potential capabdity to measure the ADS flowrate and enthalpy.
M. Madro presented the INEL madarinne on equipment modifications Basically they suggest Level 1 plus 8 items (lised in the slide, enclosed).
D. Mecham presented the INEL===amemant ofinstrument reqmrements. More infcrmanon is needed from Westinghouse on how bessed TCs work in acmanng the ADS.
Im=4=* probes for film thickness brought objections from OnfBth and Hochzeiser.
Three beam gamma densitometers, drag disks, casch tanks, turbine meers, DP transducers all were suggemed. 'the estimated cost was in the range of $2M, but a Aerlaimar was included indicating that it was not a===is-aae to provide.
JAERI, -- - M some cost a====== for the =adincariaan so ROSA - IV. 'Ibe cost is**i==aad oczcond56M.asIundesundit,without compleseelimiaanianof the t
loop seal % suong urgag by GrifBeh.Hochzeiser and others so *H=iamma the loop seal, Dr. Sheson said that he and Mr. Beckjuni are not prepared so pumde the neesssary
$1-31.5M necessary for this =ndincarian Westingboose would have e present more J
persuasive arguments in favorof this *=pannaie==-
i i
I j
Page i
j Some acnon in:ms were identified as follows:
{
Wesunghouse l
- 1. Design scaled surge and pressurizer internals (l mo.)
l
- 2. Provide time to ADS valves to JAERL j
- 3. Idennfy why chmmation ofloop sealis so impanant. If they object to 0.4 m j
loop seal, give their reasons.
l
- 4. Provide data on heated TCs in CMT.
f INEL j
- 1. Analyze reduced loop seal - two cases.
1
- 2. ?
4
- 3. Fmd method for measuring ADS flows.
- 4. Fum up instrumentation modation.
It remamed unclear to me what role RES has in unnd for INEL It is not clear that j
the Japanese can do what is needed without help from INEL or someone.
JAEPJ l
- 1. Provide mndarian on Test Marnx.
]
- 2. Provide finn JAERI costs fer imms 1.2.4,5,&*. These were said to be needed f
for Cn-miesion report and for contract.
{
lhe moeung was declared adjourned at the end of the mormng on June 4. Dr.
Shemn said he would meet in closed session with key representatives of JAERI and INEL l
in the afternoon to work further on instrumentanon, cost estimases and est matnx l
questions. It appeared that he wanted to get an agreement signed with JAERI before j
depaning Idaho.
l My view of the situanon was left somewhat uncensin. It appears that the RES plan 4
i to use ROSA - IV will be pressed forward. I had a hard time understanding sigmficant pans of the afinamina and thesafare feel that I need more information so <===w fully on the program. On the other hand,I was not persuaded by this meeting that it is a good idea j
to use ROSA to meet the AP - 600 IST needs. My intuition mils am abat NRC will laser j
regret having gone this rouse:
l s-y yours, y
i i
EE: E_E
.._E3 E
- r;'
4.7-4;E
~
Particioanti Proposed Modifications to the ROSA LSTF Facility for AP600 Safety Research Meeting, June 3rd,1992 NAME AFFILIATION
,P_HQNf Baxin, Joyce NRC/ Contracts (301) 492 7182 Bessette, David NRC/RES (301) 492-3572 Boucher, Tim INEL (208) 526 9213 Boyack, Brent E.
LANL (505) 667-2023 Cozzuol, Jim INEL (208) 526 9901 Dhir, V1. jay UCCA/ACRS (310) 825-8507 Fisher, Jim INEL (208) 526-0571 Griffith. Peter MIT (617) 253-2248 -
i Hanson, Duane J.
INEL (208) 526 9751 Marvego Ed INEL (208) 526 9544 l
Hassell, Donald NRC (301)504-1550 Hoehreiter, Lawrence E.
Westinghouse (412) 324 5158
)
Kukita, Y.
'JAERI 292 82-5263 i
Lake, James A.
INEL (208) 525-5518 Levin, Alan NRC/NRR (301) 504-2890 MacDonald, Philip E.
INEL (208) 526-9634 Mace, Mary NRC (301) 492-4297 McDowell, Michael ETEC (818) 586-5256 Mecham, Del C.
INEL (208) 526-9402 526 8756 Modro, S. Michael INEL (208)
Naff, San INEL (208) 526-6926 Ortiz, Marcos INEL (208) 526-9488 Piplica, Eugene J.
Westinghouse (412) 374-5310 Rettig, Walt INEL (208)5260351 Schrock, Virgil UC8/ACRS Consultant
($10) 642-6431 Schultz, Richard INEL (208) 526 9508 Sheldon, Rex 00E ID (208) 526 5201 Sharon, Brian W.
NRC/RES (301) 492 3500 j
Shotkin, Louis NRC/NES (301) 492 3530 Sloan, Stadra M.
INEL (208) 526-2796 Yedidia, Joe EPRI (415)8122825 Yonomoto, T.
JAERI 292 82 5320 Zuber, Novau ACS/ Consultant (301)4243585 1
l l::
LEVELS OF ROSA-IV MODIFICATIONS EXAMINED IN THE COMPARISON l..
HRSTLEVEL:
THE BASIC SET OF MODIFICATIONS:
8'l CMT PBLs (Proposed by mere inspection of tle ADS two designs)
PRHR I
REDUCED LOOP SEAL ADDTTIONAL BASIC MODIFICATION UPPER HEAD FLOW PATH (As a result of the analyses)
ACCUMULATOR STAND PIPE TO GET RIGHT VOLUME.
SECONQ LEVEL PRESSURIZER AND SURGE LINE PR. OPERLY SCALED HOT LEG THIRD LEVEL TWO CMTS, SPLrr COLD LEG i
- m. -
a
l I
kOMO 8
I ji L..
Recommendations for ROSA-IV li:
Hardware Modifications e Based on performed analyses we recommend the Level 1 modifications as providing the most effective li means for code assessment
- i:
e Consiqering the inherent limitations of scaled facilities and not complete representation of AP600 1
. configuration, ROSA-IV with the first level of modifications can provide reasonable simulation of most key phenomena expected during the selected AP600 transients
(
l:
w l'l Recommendations for ROSA-IV Hardware Modifications (cont'd) i..
- Based on the analyses and new information about I'
the ROSA-IV facility design we recommend the following additional modifications
- Vessel upper head flow paths to better
-l:
represent AP600
- Corrected accumulator' volumes
- Second CMT
- Second DVI line
- Completely removed loop seal i
- DVI deflectors
/H
'J ^
- IRWST injection gh
> A ', pe h
- Surge line and connections m....
i
=......:_;=e_
. =
. w - ;.. =
f i
Recommendations for ROSA-IV i
Hardware Modifications (cont'd) 1 1
- Summary of proposed modifications 1
l
- Two CMTs with pressurizer and cold leg pressure balancing lines
~
j
- Two DVI lines and deflectors i
- Four stages of ADS 4
-PRHR l
- Removed loop seal j
- Upper head flow paths i
- Accumulator volumes i
- IRWST injections'
- surge line and connections
- Pressurizer and surge line
/+ 9e i
l CONCLUSIONS l
I.
l..
O AP600 UNIQUE SAFETY FEATURES BEHAVIOR IS BEYOND THE i..'
ASSESSED RANGE OF APPLICABILITY OF RELAP5. THE COMPLEX NATURE OF AP600 COMPONENT INTERACTIONS REQUIRES INTEGRAL TESTING FOR CODE ASSESSMENT.
O A MODIFIED ROSA, TO THE FIRST LEVEL.OF MODIFICATIONS (INCLUDING CHANGES IN THE UPPER HEAD AND,THE ACCUMULATOR VOLUME), CAN CAPTURE MANY OF THE PHENOMENA EXPECTED IN AP600 TRANSIENTS. IT WOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 3-IN COLD LEG BREAK. IT WILL EXHIBIT THE PHENOMENA OF THE OTHER SYMMETRIC TRANSIENTS, ALTHOUGH MAGNITUDES AND TIMING MAY BE DIFFERENT.
O THE SECOND LEVEL OF MODIFICATIONS WILL ENHANCE ROSA'S ABILITY TO SIMULATE AP600 TRANSIENTS. IT EXPANDS ROSA'S ABILITY TO SIMULATE AP600 INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION DURING THE SLOWER TRANSIENTS (1-IN COLD LEG BREAK,1 TUBE SGTR, AND MSLB).
gg j@)
6
M '*o L...
/.
l CONCLUSIONS l
IO THE THIRD LEVEL OF MODIFICATIONS, AS DEFINED, FAILS TO CAPTURE THE NON-SYMMETRIC TRANSIENT (PBL BREAK) FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED. THE SPLIT COLD LEG t
CONHGURATION INTRODUCES BEHAVIOR INTO THE '
SIMULATION THAT IS NOT EXPECTED OF AP600. FURTHER MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO ENABLE ROSA TO SIMULATE THE NON-SYMMETRIC BEHAVIOR OF AP600.
O A PBL BREAK IN ROSA, WITH FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL MODIFICATIONS, ALTHOUGH LACKING NON-SYMMETRIES AND CMTS INTERACTIONS, CAN STILL PROVIDE DATA OF VALUE FOR CODE ASSESSMENT.
8-l 8
-