Monday, May 30, 2011

Leyse at ACRS Fukushima Subcommittee, May 26, 2011

May 26, 2011
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Fukushima Subcommittee Meeting

Via a bridge line telephone connection, I was allowed to briefly submit spoken comments to the subcommittee. I had no notes, in fact I was surprised that the Chairman invited public comments that were not requested in advance of the meeting.

I spoke very briefly, before the Chairman, apparently disturbed by the content of my remarks as well as my aggressive attitude, cut me off. As I recall, here is the substance of my remarks, and I will update this when the transcript of the meeting becomes available.


1. NRC and the ACRS have not addressed PRM-50-93 although the matter is of greater significance than Fukushima.

2. Although NRC had assigned a high priority to the review of PRM-50-93, the NRC has not followed through.

3. I found out that NRC had "extended" its deadline for reviewing PRM-50-93 during ACRS and NRC staff discussions at the meeting of the ACRS Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee on October 18, 2011.

4. I cited earlier discussions by NEI at this May 26, 2011, meeting in which they suggested that Fukushima would be treated as a separate activity and that existing business would proceed without interference. Likewise, the NRC must not allow its Fukushima activities to have a higher priority than reviewing PRM-50-93.

5. The brief Leyse presentations at the October 18, 2011, meeting of the Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee were the only worthy aspects of that meeting.

I'll update this with material copied from the transcript of the May 26, 2011, subcommittee meeting when that becomes available to the public.

OK, Today June 2, 2011, I noted that the transcript of the May 26, 2011, Fukushima meeting has been posted. The transcriber has rather thoroughly screwed up my verbal remarks, hence it is a good thing that I logged the above from memory. Anyway, the following is from the transcript. One thing that is accurate is the following: Instead
15 you listened to endless presentations from Penn State
16 and others that really don't bear on what's going on
17 today or was potentially going to go on.

Official Transcript of Proceedings
Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Subcommittee on FukushimaDocket Number: (n/a)
Location: Rockville, Maryland
Date: Thursday, May 26, 20114 MR. LEYSE: Yes, this is Robert Leyse.
5 I've talked to you before.
6 CHAIR ABDEL-KHALIK: Mr. Leyse, please
7 hold off. We have some here in the room who is going
8 to make comments. So I will recognize you later.
9 MR. LEYSE: I will go to *6.

21 Okay. At this time, Mr. Leyse, if you'd
22 like to offer any comments.
23 MR. LEYSE: Just came back on. Quickly,
24 I want to say PRM 50.93 was around well ahead of
25 Fukushima and a predecessor to that was around since
1 the mid -- around 2002 or 2003. And nothing seems to
2 move.
Now today we heard NEI tell us that while
4 we take this Fukushima act on we don't ignore what
5 else is going on. I would advise ACRS to be get into
6 PRM 50.83 as well as the NRC. NRC once had it as a
7 high priority item until a rather otherwise useless
8 meeting back in October of the Thermohydraulic
9 Subcommittee, the only part really bragging, not
10 bragging.
11 But it's a fact that made any sense what
12 Mark Leyse and myself discussed. You went through the
13 whole thing and never got into zirconium or how it
14 would react in a loss of coolant accident. Instead
15 you listened to endless presentations from Penn State
16 and others that really don't bear on what's going on
17 today or was potentially going to go on.
19 MR. LEYSE: End of comments. Thank you.
20 CHAIR ABDEL-KHALIK: Thank you very much.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Closeout Memorandum, Leyse business at NSF

This is for my record and I'll elaborate when I get the Closeout Memorandum. Update, June 2, 2011, including the Closeout Memorandum.

Dear Mr. Leyse:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act and/or Privacy Act request received on May 09, 2011. We have assigned NSF OIG tracking number FOIA 11-70 to your request and expect to respond not later than June 07, 2011 (20 working days after date of receipt of request). Please contact us at for questions on status.

From: []
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: Request for closeout memorandum

I request a copy of the closeout memorandum for OIG matter that is discussed in the e-mail that I received from Kenneth L. Busch on 07/16/2008 and that I have copied below.

Robert H. Leyse

Case closure

7/16/2008 10:41:40 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time


Reply To:


Mr. Robert Leyse

Sun Valley, ID

Via email to

Dear Mr. Leyse:

We opened a file in response to your email received in this office on April 17, 2008. We have determined that there is insufficient substance to an allegation of misconduct to proceed in this case. The case has been closed and no further action will be taken.

Attached to this message you will find guidance for “Obtaining a Closeout Memorandum or Investigation Report For An NSF OIG Case.” If you decide to make a FOIA request, please note that this case did not result in criminal prosecution, civil legal action, or government-wide debarment or voluntary exclusion of anyone.

Please respect CONFIDENTIAL information in this message.

Kenneth L. Busch

Office of Inspector General

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

Phone 703-292-4569 FAX 703-292-9159

OK, Today, June 2, 2011, I receved the followng response from NSF for a copy of the closeout memorandum. The date of the original closeout memorandum is June 23, 2008. Today there are more facts. Things take time! I'll have more to log as I coontinue my protest.

National Science Foundation  Office of the Inspector General
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite II-705, Arlington, Virginia 22230
1 June 2011
Robert H. Leyse
P.O. Box 2850
Sun Valley, ID 83353
Re: FOIA Request No. 11-70
Dear Mr. Leyse:
This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552) request, which we received on 9 May 2011, for a copy of the closeout memorandum for an OIG matter referred to in correspondence from an OIG employee to you on 16 July 2008.
We enclose the responsive closeout memorandum. Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), information that constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is exempt from disclosure. To protect the privacy interests of individuals who were not, with respect to the matter or matters described in the requested records, subject to successful criminal prosecution, recent civil legal action, or debarment or voluntary exclusion government-wide, we have redacted the names, titles, and other identifying information for all such individuals other than yourself, pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).
If you are not satisfied with my decision, you may appeal to the Inspector General, Allison Lerner, by writing to her at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington VA 22230. Alternatively, you may appeal directly to the General Counsel of the Foundation, at the same address.1 If you wish to appeal to either the
1 For appeals to NSF‟s General Counsel, note the requirements of 45 C.F.R. § 612.9(a): “You must make your appeal in writing and it must be received by the Office of the General Counsel within ten days of the receipt of the denial (weekends, legal holidays, and the date of receipt excluded). Clearly mark your appeal letter and the envelope „Freedom of Information Act
Inspector General or the General Counsel, you must file your appeal within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If you submit an appeal to the Inspector General and her decision is negative, you may then appeal to the General Counsel. All appeals will be acted on within 20 business days after receipt.
Stephen W. Bross, J.D.
Investigative & FOIA Attorney
Appeal.‟ Your appeal letter must include a copy of your written request and the denial together with any written argument you wish to submit.”

Page 1 of 1
Case Number: P08040064

We assessed multiple allegations ofmisconduct. An individual1 submitted, as sole PI, a proposal2 to NSF. This proposal was declined for funding. Subsequent allegations that the reviewer's comments were misconduct are without substance; reviewer comments (and their relevance and propriety) are a programmatic issue that could appropriately have been raised with the NSF Program Officer at the time of review. Misconduct is also alleged in NSF's refusal to release reviews ofa funded proposae to an individual not a PI or coPI on the proposal. NSF is abiding by the consistent policy of not releasing reviews of proposals to anyone but the PI and coPI and there is no substance here to an allegation of misconduct. Finally, misconduct is alleged in funding of a proposal revised and resubmitted after its fIrst declination.4 There is no substance to an allegation of misconduct here, as the work in the resubmission is properly attributed and the review process properly completed.

Accordingly, the case is closed.

1 Robert Leyse of Sun Valley, ID.

2 DMI-0127841 "SBIRlSTTRPhase 1: Sampling Microscale Turbulence."

3 Awarded proposal ***** This proposal is essentially a resubmission of ****** and coPI R. H Leyse.

4 Leyse's efforts in ****** were to be supported through a subaward of $10,000; this proposal was declined for funding. Leyse was not coPI or senior personnel on resubmission ***** which contains much ofthe same material (properly attributed to Leyse). ***** contains no funds for Leyse either as consultant or as subaward.

/ Lrit~.~Y .,;,

Investigator/ **** /1 / Date June 23, 2008
I····..'·J'~ ,
Print your name; insert date MOl completed.
NSF OrG Form 4 (1lI02)