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.

Items:

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
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
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.
18 CHAIR ABDEL-KHALIK: Mr. Leyse.
19 MR. LEYSE: End of comments. Thank you.
20 CHAIR ABDEL-KHALIK: Thank you very much.

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 oig@nsf.gov for questions on status.

From: Bobleyse@aol.com [mailto:Bobleyse@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:41 PM
To: OIG
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 bobleyse@aol.com

Subject:
Case closure

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

From:
kbusch@nsf.gov

Reply To:


To:
BobLeyse@aol.com

Mr. Robert Leyse

Sun Valley, ID

Via email to BobLeyse@aol.com

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

kbusch@nsf.gov

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
VIA EMAIL
Robert H. Leyse
P.O. Box 2850
Sun Valley, ID 83353
Bobleyse@aol.com
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
2
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.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Bross, J.D.
Investigative & FOIA Attorney
Enclosure
Appeal.‟ Your appeal letter must include a copy of your written request and the denial together with any written argument you wish to submit.”

NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS MEMORANDUM OF INVESTIGATION
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
AW"
I····..'·J'~ ,
~
Print your name; insert date MOl completed.
NSF OrG Form 4 (1lI02)

More Obfuscation is Work in Progress

Obfuscation NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov No. 11-055 March 23, 2011 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTS STAFF ON CONTINUING AGENCY RESPONSE TO JAPAN EVENTS; ADJUSTS COMMISSION SCHEDULE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has voted to launch a two-pronged review of U.S. nuclear power plant safety in the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and the resulting crisis at a Japanese nuclear power plant. The Commission supported the establishment of an agency task force, made up of current senior managers and former NRC experts with relevant experience. The task force will conduct both short- and long-term analysis of the lessons that can be learned from the situation in Japan, and the results of their work will be made public. “Our focus is always on ensuring the health and safety of the American people through our licensing and oversight of plants and radioactive materials in this country,” Chairman Jaczko said. “Examining all the available information from Japan is essential to understanding the event’s implications for the United States. We will perform a systematic and methodical review to see if there are changes that should be made to our programs and regulations to ensure protection of public health and safety.” The Commission set an aggressive schedule for the task force to provide formal updates on the short-term effort in 30, 60 and 90 days. NRC senior technical staff provided the Commission a 90-minute briefing on Monday, as a first step. The staff reiterated their conclusions that the United States and its territories will avoid any harmful radiation levels as a result of the ongoing events at the Fukushima Daiichi plant damaged by the quake and subsequent tsunami. NRC inspectors who are posted at every U.S. nuclear power plant will also support the task force’s short-term effort, supplemented as necessary by experts from the agency’s regional and headquarters offices. “This work will help determine if any additional NRC responses, such as Orders requiring immediate action by U.S. plants, are called for, prior to completing an in-depth investigation of the information from events in Japan,” said NRC Executive Director for Operations Bill Borchardt. The longer-term review will inform any permanent NRC regulation changes determined to be necessary. The Commission said it hopes the task force can begin the long-term evaluation in no later than 90 days, and added that the task force should provide a report with recommended actions within six months of the beginning of that effort. The Commission also decided to revise its schedule for meetings and briefings to allow ample focus on the agency’s response to events in Japan. Open Commission meetings on the status of the NRC response to the Japan earthquake are scheduled for April 14 and 28, a meeting on the staff’s 30-day response is planned for May 3 and a meeting on the staff’s 60-day response is planned for June 16. A revised Commission meeting schedule will be posted shortly on the NRC website.

An e-mail to the NRC Commissioners Way Off Base

From: Bobleyse@aol.com
To: chairman@nrc.gov, cmrsvinicki@nrc.gov, cmrostendorff@nrc.gov, cmrmagwood@nrc.gov, cmrapostolakis@nrc.gov, stephen.burns@nrc.gov
Sent: 3/21/2011 11:47:38 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time
Subj: Way off base


So:

The Chairman asserts:

On behalf of the Commission, I want to thank all of our staff for maintaining their focus on our essential safety and security mission throughout these difficult days. I want to acknowledge their tireless efforts and their critical contributions to the U.S. response to assist Japan. In spite of the evolving situation, the long hours, and the intensity of efforts over the past week, staff has approached their responsibilities with dedication, determination and professionalism, and I am incredibly proud of their efforts.

Again, the Commissioners have wasted their time. The staff does not realize that hydrogen production began well below 2200 degrees Fahrenheit. As I have pointed out, the Staff defends Baker-Just without having studied it. So does NEI.

You guys should have instead spent your time studying PRM-50-93.

Also, it is unfortunate that you encouraged so many Americans to get out of Japan. That is another consequence of your useless codes including TRACE.

Bob Leyse bobleyse@aol.com

Donlan of Barron's, 2/28/2011, "It's a corrupting relationship, ..."

A quote from Donlan of Barron’s, February 28, 2011: “It’s a corrupting relationship, even when the partners stay within the law.” Of course, Donlan was not talking about nuclear power regulation.

In the game of regulation by myth we have corrupting relationships, and the participants survive by bending the law as they see fit.

PRM-50-93, no sweat at NRC's OGC

So, here is the latest. Click to enlarge, and use your back arrow to return. Mote later regarding this.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: "You have five minutes to make your remarks."

Forward: On January 14, 2011, I addressed the ACRS in matters related to the Rod Bundle Heat Transfer program at Pennsylvania State University and also the User Need Request that is on file (ML100770218). Although ACRS allows NRC staff to use all of the time they want in generally poorly organized presentations, I was restricted to five minutes. Following is copied from the transcript of the meeting. I participated via a telephone connection. My two page handout is also here.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Mr. Leyse?
MR. LEYSE: Yes, can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Yes, we can. You have five minutes to make your remarks.
MR. LEYSE: Well, do you want me to start now?
CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Yes.
MR. LEYSE: Okay. It'll take me 10 seconds to walk to my notes, and we'll be going.
I’m Bob Leyse. I have 5 minutes. Starting with slide 1:

On December 2, 2010, I taught Full ACRS that 2200 degrees Fahrenheit is too high as a PCT to insure that thermal runaway will not occur in a LOCA.

Today I’ll focus on two items:

RBHT at Penn State and the User Need Request, Leeds to Sheron, April 26, 2010, which is a user need request for a technical analysis of PRM-50-93. November 17, 2009.

Starting with RBHT:

RBHT has apparently explored the relatively low temperature regions of LOCAs utilizing its 49 rod full length assembly with Inconel clad heaters. Very likely millions of dollars have been spent over the 13 year activity. The most recent pubic discussion of RBHT was at the ACRS Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, Monday, October 18, 2010. Of course, the general uselessness of RBHT is due to its lack of data with zirconium alloy cladding in the region greater than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit that is documented in plant licenses. NRC has avoided exploring this region with multirod assemblies having zirconium alloy cladding.

NRC (outrageously) has always promoted RBHT at Penn State
as highly applicable to TRACE and licensing. However, the documents are generally not available to anyone outside of NRC and its contractors.

ACRS Consultant Wallis may have had such access because at the cited meeting of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee he observes: “Are we going to hear about this later? Because the only thing I have seen from the Penn State work was some very sort of crude results,
but they measured all kinds of stuff.”
Next, I’ll move to the user need request, I’ll cite a tie-in to Penn State’s RBHT.

In the User Need Request, Leeds to Sheron, April 26, 2010, Leeds refers to the Technical Safety Analysis dated April 29, 2004, of my PRM-50-76, docketed May 8, 2002, as an “… outstanding technical analysis … .” However, the facts reveal that NRC’s Technical Safety Analysis of PRM-50-76 is most certainly not an outstanding technical analysis. Referring to RBHT, the Technical Safety Analysis of April 29, 2004 reports, “Current programs at Pennsylvania State University … are far more cost effective.”

So, in 2004, NRC staff was praising RBHT, but more than 6 years later, Expert Consultant Wallis reported, “…Penn State work was some very sort of crude results.”

Now, since RBHT has only used inconel clad bundles, it is absurd that Leeds lauds the 2004 Technical Safety Analysis of PRAM-50-76 as an “… outstanding technical analysis … .”
Of course there is much more documentation of the defects in RBHT and the User need letter than I am covering in 5 minutes.

Slide 2 has blue and black type. The blue type is what the Thermal Hydraulic Subcommittee was told on October 18, 2010, as its list reports that are dated 2008. The black type reveals that none of the reports have been released by NRC and three of the reports have no assigned date of release.

I still have over one minute. It’s not on either slide, but in the referenced meeting of the thermal hydraulics subcommittee there was a lot of discussion of the impact of various grid features, such as mixing vanes, on test results. However, if zircaloy grids had been used for comparison with inconel, and if the tests were conducted at realistic temperatures depicted in actual plant licenses, the impact on test results would have been far greater than the relatively minor impact of mixing vanes.Finally, I should not have been restricted to five minutes, more later on that. That’s it.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Thank you, Mr. Leyse. Are there any questions for Mr. Leyse? Well, hearing none, thank you. Are there any additional questions to either the staff, or to AREVA considering the fact that this is an open session? Hearing none, we will recess at this time. Our schedule calls for us to go to a lunch recess. We will reconvene at 1:15, and at that point we will be off the record.

Following are the two slides that are in the transcript. Click on the slide to enlarge and use your back arrow to return here.