I didn't get HM or an award, though I have continued watching this list. Great comments all around on intellectual merit, with two "very good", one "excellent". Broader impacts was really inconsistent - one excellent, one fair, one poor.
Excellent: "This project has great potential for defining a renewable and potentially large source of energy -- hydrogen. The methods proposed will be usable in the search for other bio-culture sources of transportable and renewable energy."
Poor: "The applicant does not provide any information regarding past, current, or future broader impact activities; this is a required part of the NSF application."
It seems there is an inconsistent understanding among reviewers about what constitutes "broader impacts"...