Skip to main content

Bullets Fly at Calvert Cliffs – Yawns Ensue

By

calvertcliffs Does nobody care?

One might think the NRC would be concerned about this. It's not.

Is Constellation Energy Group, which runs the place? Not really.

And why not?

Granted, it would take a lot more than a few bullets to knock over a reactor…

Well, there’s that. So what happened?

Apparently [actually, no “apparently” about it] officials created a firing range on the secured grounds of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Lusby, Md., and use it about 200 days a year.

But the shooting was halted earlier this month after someone's off-target shots during SWAT exercises shattered glass and struck a command center near the reactors.

Just think! If the bullets had got any nearer to the reactors, they would have – well, gotten nearer to the reactors. And not only at Calvert Cliffs:

Firing ranges are common on the sprawling grounds of the nation's nuclear facilities, [NRC spokeswoman Holly] Harrington said. At Calvert Cliffs, the range is used about 200 days a year by plant security officers, who are tested regularly by commission auditors.

Should Constellation be careful it doesn’t recur? Sure – an investigation is why the shooting range is shut down for now. Maybe they’ll move it further out – maybe they’ll put up some kind of barrier between range and plant. We’ll see.

But in any event:

"Heck, you could take a gun and shoot right at the reactor from the outside" and still not cause significant damage, [Lt. Steve Jones, commander of criminal investigations for the sheriff's office] said.

He called the incident a "training accident" and said a combination of "target placement [and] shooter error" probably was to blame. Investigators are conducting ballistics tests to determine which officer fired the stray shots.

Regardless, hate to be that officer.

---

Gotta love cable news.

Bullets flying around some of most toxic materials known to man?

Brilliant!

Sheesh!

Calvert Cliffs – pocked with bullets but standing tall.

Labels:

Comments

Luke said…
It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's a nuclear power plant, of course, but it's still very concerning that these security officers, who probably should have known better, would set up a firing range in an inappropriate area with buildings and potentially people downrange.

Nuclear power reactors clearly aren't dangerous at all. But inappropriate handling of firearms can certainly be.
May 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Alex Brown said…
I work at a nuclear plant and you can hear gunfire several times a week. OF course the firing here is out in the woods and not near anybody.
May 28, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Paul said…
But it wouldn't have been pretty if the bullet(s) had impacted in the substation ...

Reminds me of when I was Weapons Officer on a DDG-2 class destroyer during the summer of 1989. We didn't go on deployment with our battle group because engineering failed OPPE twice, so we became the duty ship for training naval gunfire support spotters for 12 weeks. As weapons officer, my position was on the bridge wing during gunnery exercises, listening to the internal communications between CIC, gunplot, etc. Before the CO would give "batteries released" for each fire mission, I had to use the pelorus to verify that the firing bearing was actually within the range boundaries on the southern end of San Clemente Island.

One day while we were dutifully performing fire missions for the spotters-in-training on the beach, a FF-1052 class frigate steamed up and asked us and range control if they could get some fire missions in order to practice for their upcoming annual gunnery exercise. Well, the very first 5" round they fired landed outside the range boundaries, and range control basically told them to "Go Home".
May 30, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Mark Flanagan said…
I think we can grant that the big problem here is any person standing between range and plant as a bullet goes off-course. Given the prevalence of these ranges, I expect most of the kinks have been worked out. What Constellation learns from this mishap will likely benefit other plant-based ranges around the country.
June 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more