NRC-2020-000097 closed

Subject: Final Disposition, Request NRC-2020-000097
Date: 12/26/2019 7:38:29 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: DoNotReply-NRCfoia@regulations.gov
To: bobleyse@aol.com

NRC-2020-000097 has been processed with the following final disposition: Closed for Other Reasons.

Leyse FOIA appeal UPS delivery to NRC

UPS package #1Z2Y292X1543895128

www.ups.com

1. Print
2. Feedback

Delivered: Mon, Dec 23, 10:37 AM

This is an FOIA request,  based on attached letter, Lang to Layman
10/5/2019 5:29:09 PM Mountain Standard Time
bobleyse@aol.com
foia@nrc.gov

This FOIA consists of a request for documents that are discussed in the attached letter, Layman December 13, 1984.  This letter documents a telephone conversation between Wayne Lanning of the NRC  and Gary Vine of EPRI's Nuclear Safety Analysis Center.  This telephone conversation was initiated by the NRC.

In paragraph 1. there is a reference to an AEOD memorandum dated February 28, 1984.  Under this  FOIA I am demanding a copy of that AEOD memorandum that is dated February 28,1984.

In paragraph 3, there is a reference to an AEOD evaluation.  I  want copy of that AEOD evaluation.

In paragraph 4.a. there is reference to a memorandum dated October 3, 1984, "UHI-Ultra High Risk" from which the author had been obscured.  I want a copy of that memorandum that has the obscured features.

In paragraph 4.c. there is reference to a joint AEOD/NRR response to Keppler.  I want a copy  of that response.

In paragraph 5. there is discussion of the valued technical relationship between NSAC and AEOD.  I want a copy of all of the records of that technical relationship.

Robert H. Leyse

December 6, 2019

Robert H. Leyse

P. O. Box 2850

Sun Valley, ID 83353

FOIA Officer

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop T-2 F-43

Washington, D. C. 20555-0001

FOIA Appeal

Enclosed are stapled or single page documents in the following order:

1.  FOIA REQUEST
2.  Latest FOIA – (including acknowledgement letter)
3. FOIA Request  10/13/2019
4. Fee Estimate
5.  November 5, 2019, Administrative Closeout
6.  December 2, 2019, response from OGIS

Document 1 is the straightforward FOIA.

Document 2 is the associated acknowledgement letter

Document 3 clarifies (expands) Document 1

Document 4 states Leyse should not be classified as “Non-Excepted”

Document 5 is the administrative closing of Document 1

Document 6 is a response to Leyse from OGIS.  On page 2 OGIS has five bullets with analytical factors.  Leyse insists that the disclosure of the illegal and undisclosed to Leyse or the public of  relationships between NSAC and the NRC, will identify the existence of identifiable and malicious operations and activities of the NRC, will contribute to public awareness of NRC operations that are not otherwise disclosed to Leyse or the public, will not further any commercial interests of Leyse, and the public interest in these disclosures will exceed Leyse’s interest when the disclosures are publicized.

Robert H. Leyse

Simpson and upper head injection system (UHI)

Facts for EPRI and NRC

Simpson and upper head injection system (UHI)

From page 199 of Simpson’s book, NUCLEAR POWER FROM UNDERSEAS TO OUTER SPACE 

“Where this couldn’t be done or wasn’t enough, we proposed an upper head injection system.”  Simpson bragged about “... many competent engineers who were becoming available, including Retallick from our NERVA program.”  Actually, Retallick was not that competent, but upper head injection was subsequently well defended by John Taylor who had moved from Westinghouse to a senior position at the Electric Power Research Institute.



UHI and dissolved nitrogen - the Chexal Technical Review Panel and several related documents. 



This communication provides additional documents that are relevant to the Chexal Technical Review Panel that is the focal point of my prior letter dated August 9, 2016.  For convenience it includes three of the documents that are in the August 9, 2016 communication.

Chexal’s email that set up the Technical Review Panel is repeated below.  I was never allowed to participate in that review and I have never seen the panel’s report.  I have asked EPRI to send me that report and it appears unlikely the EPRI will ever provide that.

My communication of August 9, 2016, includes a reference that predates the Chexal directive by almost 2 years, NUCLEONICS WEEK, January 10, 1991.  The two documents below predate the Chexal email by 20 years. Leyse to Gallagher, October 1972, asks if, “… the effects  

of nitrogen saturation and outgassing have been considered in any aspect of design or operation …”

“

Gallagher to Leyse, November 1972, responds, “… the effects of nitrogen saturation have not been considered.”



Three months following Gallagher’s memo, quantitative data was provided by Poulson and Cleary as follows:







So, it is with the above background, that I remain infuriated by the NRC report. AEOD/E504, Failures in the Upper Head Injection System, February 28, 1984.  I then wrote the following on October 3, 1984, that is featured in my letter to you that is dated August 9, 2016:







I provided a copy of the above to the NRC (Keppler) under the condition that it would not expose me as the author. I blacked out portions of the document that identified its source.  Nevertheless, NRC contacted my employer.  That is documented as follows:





However, it was the responses to Leyse, October 3, 1984, that led to the McGuire discovery of no measurement of water level and likely nitrogen-filled accumulators.  Lang refers to an NSAC review that “… concluded that malfunction of the upper head injection system would not place the plant in jeopardy ….”

Lang then reported, “Lanning said that AEOD’s evaluation is similar but that detailed thermal hydraulic analysis will be performed for confirmation.” 

NSAC never admitted that the water-filled accumulator at McGuire was likely filled with nitrogen instead of water and it is likely that AEOD also did not uncover that situation.  Thus the two “separate and independent” organizations were in agreement.

GE ESBWR references and access by US public

Subject: FOIA Appeal NRC-2020-000053 Submitted
Date: 11/25/2019 12:33:12 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: admin@foiaonline.gov
To: bobleyse@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

This message is to notify you of a new appeal submission to the FOIAonline application. Appeal information is as follows:

• Appeal Tracking Number: NRC-2020-000053
• Request Tracking Number: NRC-2019-000390
• Requester Name: Robert Leyse
• Date Submitted: 11/25/2019
• Appeal Status: Submitted
• Description: Appeal the denial of information of each of the listed INPO, NSAC, or NSAC/INPO records referenced in ESBWR Licensing Topical Report NEDO-33262 (Rev. 2), submitted by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which may be found in ADAMS as ML081560316

Cover letter for FOIA APPEAL, Mailed today, EXPRESS MAIL

November 19, 2019

Robert H. Leyse                                                                                                  P. O. Box 2850                                                                                                Sun Valley, ID 83353

FOIA Officer                                                                                                       U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                            Mail Stop T-2 F43                                                                                      Washington, D. C. 20555-0001

FOIA Appeal

Enclosed are stapled documents in the following order:

1.  FOIA REQUEST

2.  NRC FORM 464  2019-000390  dated 10/02/2019

3.  RE: NRC-2019-OOO390  dated 11/1/2019

4. NRC FORM 464  2019-000390 Rev  dated 11/01/2019

Document 1 requests that the public be granted access to references that are cited in a vital GE licensing report; the public need this access so that assorted outside experts may ascertain their accuracy, etc.

Document 2 is the NRC’s erroneous denial.

Document 3 describes the errors in the denial of Document 2.

Document 4 is a correction of Document 2.

Documents 2 and 4 each disclose that since INPO considers the reports to be confidential commercial information the NRC is denying public access to those documents.  That is a very erroneous denial.  Assorted public experts may prevent another Fukushima.  INPO, the NRC and GE are not infallible!



Robert H. Leyse

Also in preparation, page 1 is missing

NRC FORM 464 Part I
(04-2018)
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER
RESPONSE
TYPE INTERIM FINAL
PART I.D -- COMMENTS
Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee
2019-000390 Rev 1
✔
As an initial matter, we note that you requested these same records many years ago; in response to that request, which
was designated FOIA/PA-2008-0322, our office withheld in their entirety the records that the NRC was able to locate under
FOIA exemption 4, and identified identified 13 records that the NRC was unable to locate.
Upon receipt of this request, we reached out to staff in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to ascertain whether
the NRC now has copies of these 13 records. NRR staff informed our office that, under the Memorandum of Agreement with
the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the NRC is not provided access to INPO Nuclear Network OE reports;
nor does the NRC have access to the records originated by the Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, which is a part of the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (Although we originally misconstrued the reference to NSAC in your request as
pertaining to the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, which also uses the same acronym, we now understand that you
meant the EPRI group. We note that we were unable to locate any of the specified reports, based upon only a report
number, on EPRI's website. You may wish to reach out to EPRI directly.) NRR staff informed us that they were unable to
locate an INPO Significant Event Report with the title "In Preparation - Inventory Drain Down." NRR staff also informed us
that, although they were not able to locate a joint NSAC/INPO report entitled Significant Event Report 56-81, "Loss of
Station and Reserve Auxiliary Power," they did locate an INPO Significant Event Report 56-81 with the same name. NRR
staff is unfamiliar with any publication called an INPO Nuclear Network WE entry or report and NRR staff reached out to
their point of contact at INPO who informed them that there is no such publication.
With respect to the INPO records that NRC does maintain, as required by our FOIA regulations, we reached out to INPO
representatives to ascertain their disclosure views. INPO confirmed that these reports are considered to be confidential
commercial information. Accordingly, they are being withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 4. See Part II.
Stephanie A. Blaney Digitally signed by Stephanie A. Blaney
Date: 2019.11.01 10:56:14 -04'00'
NRC FORM 464 Part II
(04-2018)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST
NRC Form 464 Part II (04-2018)
NRC
DATE:
PART II.A -- APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS
Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order protecting national security information.
Records subject to the request are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the FOIA exemption(s) as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).
Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC.
Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by the statute indicated.
Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165).
Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).
41 U.S.C. 4702(b), which prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals, except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the
Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s)
indicated.
The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and
accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1).
The information is considered to be another type of confidential business (proprietary) information.
The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).
Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are normally privileged in civil litigation.
Deliberative process privilege.
Attorney work product privilege.
Attorney-client privilege.
Exemption 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result
in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.
(A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an open enforcement proceeding.
(C) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(D) The information consists of names and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential
sources.
(E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention of the law.
(F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
Other:
PART II.B -- DENYING OFFICIALS
In accordance with 10 CFR 9.25(g) and 9.25(h) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the official(s) listed
below have made the determination to withhold certain information responsive to your request.
DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL
EDO SECY
Other:
2019-000390 Rev
11/01/2019
✔
✔
Stephanie A. Blaney FOIA Officer INPO reports ✔
Select Title/Office from drop-down list
Select Title/Office from drop-down list
Select Title/Office from drop-down list

In preparation, related to following GE ESBWR entry

NRC FORM 464 Part I
(04-2018)
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER
RESPONSE
TYPE INTERIM FINAL
REQUESTER: DATE:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:
PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED
The NRC has made some, or all, of the requested records publicly available through one or more of the following means:
(1) https://www.nrc.gov; (2) public ADAMS, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; (3) microfiche available in the NRC Public
Document Room; or FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home.
Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to
that agency (See Part I.D -- Comments) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.
We are continuing to process your request.
See Part I.D -- Comments.
PART I.A -- FEES
AMOUNT
You will be billed by NRC for the amount indicated.
You will receive a refund for the amount indicated.
Fees waived.
Since the minimum fee threshold was not met,
you will not be charged fees.
Due to our delayed response, you will not be
charged search and/or duplication fees that
would otherwise be applicable to your request.
PART I.B -- INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE
We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law
enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard
notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist.
We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.
Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of
the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination.
You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response. If you submit an appeal by mail,
address it to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-2 F43, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. You may
submit an appeal by e-mail to FOIA.resource@nrc.gov. You may fax an appeal to (301) 415-5130. Or you may submit an appeal
through FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Please be sure to include on your submission that it
is a “FOIA Appeal.”
PART I.C -- REFERENCES AND POINTS OF CONTACT
You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison by submitting your inquiry at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
foia/contact-foia.html, or by calling the FOIA Public Liaison at (301) 415-1276.
If we have denied your request, you have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's Public Liaison or the Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS). To seek dispute resolution services from OGIS, you may e-mail OGIS at ogis@nara.gov, send
a fax to (202) 741-5789, or send a letter to: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration,
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. For additional information about OGIS, please visit the OGIS website at
https://www.archives.gov/ogis.
2019-000390 1
✔
Robert Leyse 10/02/2019
Each of the listed INPO, NSAC, or NSAC/INPO records referenced in ESBWR Licensing Topical Report NEDO-33262
(Rev. 2), submitted by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which which may be found in ADAMS as ML081560316.