HETA 97–0255–2735

Forest Park Police Department

Forest Park, Ohio

Joshua M. Harney, MS

Michael E. Barsan

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports
ii

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts field investigations of possible

health hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6)

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, following a written request from any employer or authorized representative of

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially

toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon request, technical and

consultative assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals

to control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company names

or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Joshua M. Harney and Michael E. Barsan, of the Hazard Evaluations and

Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS).

Field assistance was provided by Krystyn Bussa and Keith Crouch. Analytical support was provided by

Ardith Grote, Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering (DPSE). Desktop publishing was performed

by Nichole Herbert. Review and preparation for printing was performed by Penny Arthur.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at the Forest Park Police

Department and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced.

Single copies of this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this report. To

expedite your request, include a self–addressed mailing label along with your written request to:

NIOSH Publications Office

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

800–356–4674

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at

5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report shall be

posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the employees for a

period of 30 calendar days.
iii

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 97–0255–2735

Forest Park Police Department

Forest Park, Ohio

April 1999

Joshua M. Harney, MS

Michael E. Barsan

SUMMARY

On June 30, 1997, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a Health

Hazard Evaluation (HHE) request from the Forest Park Police Department (FPPD), of Forest Park, Ohio.

The requestor was concerned about the potential for exposure to lead among police officers who use the

indoor firing range. To determine exposure potential, environmental air samples and surface wipe samples

were collected for lead, and the ventilation system was evaluated.

Air sampling results indicate that even while the general ventilation system is operating, range users can be

overexposed to lead within a short time (about one hour). Area and personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples

for lead ranged from “not detected” to 180 micrograms per cubic meter (:g/m3

) 8–hour time–weighted

average (TWA) on July 29, 1997, and from “not detected” to 960 :g/m3

 8–hour TWA on December 10, 1998.

During the first air sampling survey (July 1997) the average 8–hour TWA lead concentration measured in

the range was 144 :g/m3

. During the second air sampling survey (December 1998) the average 8–hour TWA

lead concentration measured in the range was 230 :g/m3

 as collected on 37–mm cassettes, and 433 :g/m3

as collected on Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) samplers.

Wipes samples collected inside the range and in the work areas outside the range showed widespread lead

contamination. Surface lead loading levels ranged from 130 :g/ft2

 in the men’s locker room (outside the

range) to 102,000 :g/ft2

 on the curved supply air diffuser inside the range. 

Both air and wipe samples indicate that lead is escaping from the range into surrounding work areas of the

police station. Also, airborne lead was detected downstream of the filter banks in the rooftop air handling

unit (AHU) in the July 1997 survey, indicating that in the past, contaminated air had been recirculated into

the range.

Currently the general ventilation system performs inadequately to control exposures to range users, range

masters, and workers in areas nearby the range. The ventilation problems can be separated into three general

categories: pressurization of the range, average downrange (from the firing line towards the bullet trap) air

velocity near the firing line, and airflow patterns within the range. 

The ventilation system at this indoor firing range does not control exposures to airborne

lead. Wipe sampling on horizontal surfaces in the range and in work areas adjacent to the

range indicate a potential lead hazard to those who use the range as well as to those who

work nearby. To solve these problems the range should be negatively pressurized and

adequate airflow through the range should move in a uniform (non–turbulent) manner from

the firing line to the bullet trap and main exhaust plenum.

Keywords: SIC 9221, police, indoor firing range, IFR, lead, ventilation, wipe sampling, blood lead levels

(BLLs), inhalable sampler, IOM sampler

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgments and Availability of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction ........................................................................ 1

Background ........................................................................ 1

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ventilation Design/Maintenance Practices ............................................. 1

Housekeeping and Hygiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methods ........................................................................... 2

Air Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Wipe Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ventilation Assessment ............................................................ 3

Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Lead – Surface Dust ........................................................... 5

Lead – Childhood Exposure ..................................................... 5

Ventilation ...................................................................... 5

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Air Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Wipe Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Ventilation Assessment ............................................................ 7

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Air Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Wipe Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ventilation ...................................................................... 9

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
INTRODUCTION

On June 30, 1997, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

received a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE)

request from an employer representative of the

Forest Park Police Department (FPPD). The

requestor was concerned for potential exposure to

lead among range users. NIOSH investigators

originally assigned to this HHE request conducted

a walk–through evaluation on July 14, 1997, and

a more thorough industrial hygiene evaluation on

July 29, 1997. In November 1998, this HHE was

reassigned because of personnel changes within

NIOSH. Subsequently, a walk–through survey of

the police firing range was conducted by the new

hygienist on November 4, 1998, and further

evaluations were conducted on December 10th and

21st, 1998.

BACKGROUND

General

The FPPD employs approximately thirty officers

who use the range monthly during firearms

qualification tests. The five–booth indoor firing

range, opened in 1983, is used by other

departments and organizations as well. Each

firing booth is approximately four feet wide. The

range is 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. The

distance from floor to ceiling is 8 feet at the firing

line and increases to 11 feet at the bullet trap. The

exposure frequency for FPPD officers averages

about one hour once per month plus optional

practice time, and one hour per week for range

masters. The range is used approximately 10–15

hours per week. During shooting, the ventilation

system runs at all times. There is no formal

ongoing lead exposure monitoring program at this

facility. In the last few years, several current and

former range masters have voluntarily had blood

lead measurements taken as a part of their annual

physical examination.

Ventilation

Design/Maintenance

Practices

Ventilation for the range is handled by two

dedicated rooftop air handling units (AHUs)

which are independent of the rest of the facility.

The larger of the two AHUs (“recirculation

AHU”) uses one fan (rated at 10,500 cubic feet

per minute [cfm]) to exhaust air from the

downrange end of the range, filter it, mix it with

makeup air, and recirculate it back into the range

without conditioning it. The inlet of the second

unit, (the “exhaust–only AHU” rated at

2,700 cfm) is located in the ceiling midway

between the firing line and the main exhaust

plenum, and is for exhaust and filtration only.

The recirculation AHU passes air through two

banks of filters listed by the manufacturer as

90–95% efficient. Each filter bank has a

manometer monitoring the air pressure differential

across the filters. The exhaust–only AHU filters

air through one filter bank (rated by manufacturer

as 90–95% efficient) before discharging it into the

environment. There were no standard operating

procedures (SOPs) for monitoring the

effectiveness of this ventilation system or for

maintaining its components at the time of the

evaluation.

Housekeeping and Hygiene

Range users are responsible for cleaning the range

when finished shooting. Clean–up consists of dry

sweeping the range floor and picking up shell

casings, separating them by caliber into buckets

stored in the range, and removing any used targets

or personal belongings. When the bullet trap is

cleaned out, approximately once every two or

three years, workers reportedly wear gloves while

they shovel the debris into containers which are

taken to a local recycling center. The bullet trap

was not cleaned during this HHE.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

Range users are not required to wear special

clothing during range use. They may wear their

duty uniforms, street clothes, or work clothes. A

locker room is available to change clothes and

shower. Currently the floors outside the range in

the hallways and work rooms are mopped about

once per week by a contract janitorial company.

There is no regular schedule for mopping,

washing, or otherwise thoroughly cleaning the

interior surfaces of the firing range itself.

METHODS

Air Sampling

During the survey of July 29, 1997, air samples

were collected on mixed cellulose ester membrane

filters connected to battery–powered air sampling

pumps calibrated at a flow rate of 2.4 liters per

minute (Lpm). These samples were analyzed for

metals using an inductively coupled plasma

emission spectrometer according to NIOSH

Method 7300.1

 Sixteen air samples were collected

in and around the firing range. Five area samples

were collected for a period of one hour with the

ventilation system running, but prior to any

weapons being fired in the range in order to

measure background levels of airborne metals.

For the second portion of the air sampling

evaluation, two police officers fired

approximately 450 rounds in about 45 minutes.

During this time, an additional five area samples

were collected, and a personal breathing zone

(PBZ) air sample was collected on each officer

during the shooting session. Two area samples

were collected on the roof during the firing

session: one near the mid–range exhaust stack

and one near the make–up air intake grille. Also

during this time, an area air sample was collected

in two areas outside the range: the control booth

and the hallway outside the control booth.

One officer fired a total of 400 rounds of .38 and

.40 caliber ammunition in the 45 minute

qualification simulation during the survey of

December 10, 1998. While a standard

37–millimeter (mm) cassette is commonly used to

collect “inhalable” or “total” particulate samples,

in many situations the Institute of Occupational

Medicine (IOM) sampler more representatively

samples aerosols as they are inspired by humans,2

especially with regard to larger particles

(> ~25 micrometer [:m] aerodynamic diameter).3

Because ingestion of larger inhaled leaded

particulate is a potential contributor to exposure,

in order to more accurately characterize the

exposure it was desirable to also use a sampler in

which larger particles in the aerosol, if present,

were more representatively sampled. Therefore

the second survey was conducted with

side–by–side sampling done with closed–face,

37–mm cassettes, and with IOM samplers. A total

of eight IOM samples and nineteen, 37–mm

cassette samples were collected at a flow rate of

2 Lpm. Area samples were collected before

shooting began in the control booth, on the

uprange wall, above shooting booth 3, on the

ceiling midrange, on the ceiling near the bullet

trap, in the recirculation AHU housing, and near

the rooftop exhaust–only AHU. During shooting

exercises, samples were collected in these

locations again, in addition to one environmental

sample (for comparison to the AHU samples) and

four PBZ samples. All air samples were analyzed

for mass (NIOSH Method # 0500)4

 and for metals

(NIOSH Method #7300).1

 Results from the

37–mm samplers are more suitable for comparison

to the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)

than are the IOM results because the IOM

samplers will typically sample 2–3 times the

contaminants the 37–mm samplers do.

Wipe Sampling

During the initial survey, three surface wipe

samples were collected from 10 x 10–centimeter

areas using Wash’n Dri® towelettes. The wipe

samples were analyzed using graphite furnace

atomic absorption spectrometry according to

NIOSH Method 7105.5

 One wipe sample was

collected from the inner surface of the curved air

diffuser (supply inlet) behind booth 3, another

wipe sample was taken from the top surface of the
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 3

fold–down shooting bench in booth 2, and a

sample was taken from the table top in the control

booth.

On December 10, 1998, 12 wipe samples were

taken as described above, and analysis was done

by flame atomic absorption spectrometry

according to NIOSH Method 9100.6

 In an attempt

roughly to gauge the uniformity of contamination

on a particular surface, in some cases

side–by–side samples were collected. The curved

air diffuser (where a thick layer of dark gray dust

had accumulated), a shooting bench, and the table

top in the control room were again wiped. To

document contamination inside building areas

near the range, wipes were also taken on the

hallway floor immediately outside the range, in

the men’s locker room, on the hallway coffee

table, and in the briefing room. One wipe was

also collected in the recirculation AHU

downstream from the filter banks to document any

breakthrough, if present. 

Ventilation Assessment

During the initial survey, airflow patterns in the

range were observed using a Roscoe Fog Machine

(Model 1500) to generate a visible, non–toxic

“smoke.” Smoke was released at different heights

from floor to ceiling behind the firing line for all

of the shooting stations. During the second

survey, the smoke machine was again used to

document whether the airflow patterns within the

range had changed significantly in the time

between surveys. Also, observations were made

regarding whether the range was under positive or

negative pressure, and a visual inspection of the

AHUs was made.

A quantitative ventilation assessment was done by

determining the volumetric flow rate of air being

supplied to and exhausted from the range. Where

possible, an Accubalance (TSI, Inc.) Flow Hood

was used for direct measurement. In cases where

the Flow Hood could not be used, a Velocicalc

(TSI, Inc.) thermoanemometer was used to make

a multi–point traverse of the airstream at the

plenum and the flow rate was calculated.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed

by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff

employ environmental evaluation criteria for the

assessment of a number of chemical and physical

agents. These criteria are intended to suggest

levels of exposure to which most workers may be

exposed up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per

week for a working lifetime without experiencing

adverse health effects. It is, however, important to

note that not all workers will be protected from

adverse health effects even though their exposures

are maintained below these levels. A small

percentage may experience adverse health effects

because of individual susceptibility, a

pre–existing medical condition, and/or a

hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some

hazardous substances may act in combination with

other workplace exposures, the general

environment, or with medications or personal

habits of the worker to produce health effects even

if the occupational exposures are controlled at the

level set by the criterion. These combined effects

are often not considered in the evaluation criteria.

Also, some substances are absorbed by direct

contact with the skin and mucous membranes, and

thus potentially increase the overall exposure.

Finally, evaluation criteria may change over the

years as new information on the toxic effects of an

agent become available.

The primary sources of environmental evaluation

criteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSH

Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs),7

 (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists' (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVs®),8

 and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).9

NIOSH encourages employers to follow the

OSHA limits, the NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH

TLVs, or whichever are the more protective
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

criterion. The OSHA PELs reflect the feasibility

of controlling exposures in various industries

where the agents are used, whereas NIOSH RELs

are based primarily on concerns relating to the

prevention of occupational disease. It should be

noted when reviewing this report that employers

are legally required to meet those levels specified

by an OSHA standard.

A time–weighted average (TWA) exposure refers

to the average airborne concentration of a

substance during a normal 8– to 10–hour

workday. Some substances have recommended

short–term exposure limits (STEL) or ceiling

values which are intended to supplement the

TWA where there are recognized toxic effects

from higher exposures over the short–term.

Lead

Lead is ubiquitous in U.S. urban environments

due to the widespread use of lead compounds in

industry, gasoline, and paints during the past

century. Exposure to lead occurs via inhalation of

dust and fume, and ingestion through contact with

lead–contaminated hands, food, cigarettes, and

clothing. Absorbed lead accumulates in the body

in the soft tissues and bones. Lead is stored in

bones for decades, and may cause health effects

long after exposure as it is slowly released in the

body. 

Symptoms of lead exposure include weakness,

excessive tiredness, irritability, constipation,

anorexia, abdominal discomfort (colic), fine

tremors, and "wrist drop."10,11,12 Overexposure to

lead may also result in damage to the kidneys,

anemia, high blood pressure, infertility and

reduced sex drive in both sexes, and impotence.

An individual's Blood Lead Level (BLL) is a good

indication of recent exposure to, and current

absorption of lead.13 The frequency and severity

of symptoms associated with lead exposure

generally increase with the BLL.

The overall geometric mean BLL for the U.S.

adult population (ages 20–74 yrs) declined

significantly between 1976 and 1991, from 13.1 to

3.0 micrograms per deciliter of blood (μg/dL)–this

decline is most likely due primarily to the

reduction of lead in gasoline. More than 90% of

adults now have a BLL of <10 μg/dL, and more

than 98% have a BLL <15 μg/dL.14

Under the OSHA general industry lead standard

(29 CFR 1910.1025), the PEL for airborne

exposure to lead is 50 micrograms per cubic meter

(μg/m3

) (8–hour TWA).15 The standard requires

lowering the PEL for shifts exceeding 8 hours,

medical monitoring for employees exposed to

airborne lead at or above the action level of

30 μg/m3

 (8–hour TWA), medical removal of

employees whose average BLL is 50 μg/dL or

greater, and economic protection for medically

removed workers. Medically removed workers

cannot return to jobs involving lead exposure until

their BLL is below 40 μg/dL. ACGIH has a TLV

for lead of 50 μg/m3

 (8–hour TWA), with worker

BLLs to be controlled to or below 30 μg/dL, and

designation of lead as an animal carcinogen.16

The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has

established a goal, by the year 2000, to eliminate

all occupational exposures that result in BLLs

greater than 25 μg/dL.17

The occupational exposure criteria (above) are not

protective for all the known health effects of lead.

For example, studies have found neurological

symptoms in workers with BLLs of 40 to

60 μg/dL, and decreased fertility in men at BLLs

as low as 40 μg/dL. BLLs are associated with

increases in blood pressure, even at levels less

than 10 μg/dL. Fetal exposure to lead is

associated with reduced gestational age,

birthweight, and early mental development with

maternal BLLs as low as 10 to 15 μg/dL.18 Men

and women who are planning on having children

should limit their exposure to lead. 

In homes with a family member occupationally

exposed to lead, care must be taken to prevent

"take home" of lead, that is, lead carried into the

home on clothing, skin, hair, and in vehicles.

High BLLs in resident children, and elevated
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 5

concentrations of lead in the house dust, have

been found in the homes of workers employed in

industries associated with high lead exposure.19

Particular effort should be made to ensure that

children of persons who work in areas of high

lead exposure receive a BLL test.

Lead – Surface Dust

Lead–contaminated surface dust represents a

potential source of lead exposure, particularly for

young children. This may occur either by direct

hand–to–mouth contact, or indirectly from

hand–to–mouth contact with contaminated

clothing, cigarettes, or food. Previous studies

have found a significant correlation between

resident children’s BLLs and house dust lead

levels.20 There is currently no federal standard

which provides a permissible limit for lead

contamination of surfaces in occupational

settings. The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) currently recommends the following

clearance levels for surface lead loading be met

after residential lead abatement or interim control

activities: uncarpeted floors, 100 micrograms per

square foot (μg/ft2

); interior window sills, 500

μg/ft2

; window wells, 800 μg/ft2.

21 These levels

have been established as achievable through lead

abatement and interim control activities, and they

are not based on projected health effects

associated with specific surface dust levels.

Lead – Childhood Exposure

The adverse effects of lead on children and

fetuses include decreases in intelligence and brain

development, developmental delays, behavioral

disturbances, decreased stature, anemia, decreased

gestational weight and age, and miscarriage or

stillbirth. Lead exposure is especially devastating

to fetuses and young children due to potentially

irreversible toxic effects on the developing brain

and nervous system.18

No threshold has been identified for the harmful

effects of lead in children; the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) currently

recommends a multitier approach to defining and

preventing childhood lead poisoning, based on

BLL screening.22 The BLLs and corresponding

actions which CDC has recommended are:

$10 μg/dL, community prevention activities;

$15 μg/dL, individual case management including

nutritional and educational interventions and more

frequent screening; $20 μg/dL, medical

evaluation, environmental investigation and

remediation. Additionally, environmental

investigation and remediation are recommended

for BLLs of 15–19, if such levels persist.

Overall, U.S. population BLLs have declined

since 1976. A recent national survey found that

the geometric mean BLL for children ages

1–11 ranged from 2.5–4.1 μg/dL, with the highest

mean BLL among children aged 1–2 years.23

However, it was estimated from the survey that

8.9% of U.S. children under 6 years, or about

1.7 million children, have elevated BLLs

($10 μg/dL).

Ventilation

To minimize exposures to contaminants resulting

from weapons fire, ventilation systems of indoor

firing ranges should provide favorable conditions

with regard to at least four criteria: filtration

efficiency, range pressurization, volumetric flow

rate, and airflow patterns. Any air filtered and

re–circulated through the range should be

high–efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered.

Firing ranges should be under slight negative

pressure so that no contaminants escape the range

under normal operating conditions. The

volumetric flow rate of air being supplied to and

exhausted from the range should provide a

minimum average downrange air velocity at the

firing line of 50 feet per minute (fpm).24 Finally,

it is desirable to have air moving downrange as

laminar (nonturbulent) as possible, especially near

the firing line. Even if the range is pressurized

correctly and a minimum downrange air velocity

of 50 fpm is achieved at the firing line, range

users may still receive excessive exposures to lead

if large scale eddies exist that create “backflow”
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

and bring contaminated air back into their

breathing zones.

RESULTS

Air Sampling

Presented in Table 1 are the results from area and

PBZ air sampling from the first survey.

Quantifiable amounts of lead were found only on

those samples collected during the shooting

exercises, and not on those collected before the

shooting exercises. Assuming no lead exposure

occurred during the day other than what was

measured during sampling, the average 8–hour

TWA lead concentration for the two PBZ samples

collected in the range during shooting exercises

was 144 :g/m3

. This is nearly three times the

OSHA PEL of 50 :g/m3

. Because lead was

detected in the control booth and in the hallway

outside the range, it can be concluded that

airborne lead escapes the range into the nearby

work areas.

Of particular note are the results measured on the

rooftop of the range. Detecting lead in an area

where the air should have already been HEPA

filtered may indicate failure of the control

(filtration) system. Reportedly, during the

1997 survey, several filters were missing from the

filter banks. During the 1998 survey all filters

were in place, and no lead was detected on

samples collected in or around the rooftop AHUs

downstream from the filter banks.

On one of the pre–shooting general area samples

collected on July 29, 1997, small amounts of

beryllium and cadmium were unexpectedly

detected. On a second pre–shooting area sample

only cadmium was detected in quantifiable

amounts. Similar results should be expected on

the samples collected during weapons firing that

day; however, this did not occur. No cadmium or

beryllium was detected on any area or PBZ

sample collected during firing exercises. During

the second survey, no cadmium or beryllium were

detected on any samples before or during

shooting.

Air sampling results from the second survey are

shown in Tables 2 and 3. All 8–hour TWA results

assume that no further exposure occurred beyond

what was measured during sampling. During

pre–shooting sampling, any dust collected on the

filters was below the minimum detectable

concentration (MDC) of 0.1 :g/m3

 based on the

limit of detection (LOD) of 0.02 milligrams and

average sample volume of 170 L. As expected,

the highest dust concentration was encountered by

the officer doing the shooting. The 37–mm

cassette gravimetric results ranged from nd

– 0.54 mg/m3

 8–hour TWA. IOM results ranged

from 0.13 – 1.27 mg/m3

 8–hour TWA. For

side–by–side sampling done during shooting

exercises, the concentration of dust collected by

IOM samplers exceeded that of the 37–mm

cassettes in five of six pairs.

All air samples taken indoors during shooting

during the 1998 survey yielded 8–hour TWA lead

exposures in excess of the OSHA action level of

30 :g/m3

 (Table 3). Even the area air sample

collected in the control room resulted in an eight

hour equivalent concentration of 40 :g/m3

. The

highest 8–hour TWA concentrations were

collected in a midrange–ceiling area sample

(37–mm = 270 :g/m3

, IOM = 960 :g/m3) and in

the PBZ of the shooter (37–mm = 640 :g/m3

, IOM

= 960 :g/m3

). As in the case for total dust, the

concentration of lead collected by IOM samplers

exceeded that of the 37–mm cassettes in five of

six pairs during shooting exercises. The rooftop

air samples and the environmental sample

collected as a background level yielded nd results

for lead.

Wipe Sampling

Table 4 shows wipe sampling results from both

surveys. The highest concentrations of lead were

found on the curved air diffuser of the range

supply inlet. It is possible that this lead has

merely accumulated through settling immediately
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 7

after evolving from the discharge of firearms. But

because the ventilation system is normally on at

all times during shooting and cleanup, it is more

likely that lead particulate has circulated through

the ventilation system and impacted on the inner

surface of the curved air diffuser after by–passing

the AHU filters. It was reported that at some

point in the past the ventilation system was

operated without all the filters in the AHUs,

making this possible. Wipe sample FP–8 shows

that leaded dust remains in the recirculation AHU

downstream of the filter banks. Small amounts of

lead may continue to be re–entrained by the

airflow and enter the range, even though the filter

banks now work effectively.

The degree of contamination in the areas outside

the range is indicated by the high lead

concentrations found on nearby work and food

preparation surfaces. These levels were generally

far in excess of what would be allowed to pass a

clearance test following a lead abatement project

in a residential setting. Also, there seemed to be

little variation in lead concentration between

sample pairs obtained by side–by–side sampling.

Only the sample pair taken from the floor outside

the range, which is the only surface regularly

cleaned among surfaces where paired wipes were

taken, differed by as much as an order of

magnitude. This may indicate that the lead

contamination is more or less uniform in areas

that are not regularly cleaned.

Ventilation Assessment

The range door was closed and locked during

firing exercises. When firing exercises

commenced during the latest survey, the smell of

burned gunpowder became immediately

noticeable to those outside the range. When

placing a hand near the gasket material between

the range door and doorjamb, one observer noted

forceful streams of air escaping the firing range.

In fact, the supply air forced the range door open

and held it open as long as the ventilation system

was turned on unless the door was bolted shut.

This indicates that the range is under positive

pressure (air flows out of the range and into

surrounding areas) when the ventilation system is

turned on.

To objectively document positive pressurization

of the range, the volumetric flow rate of the range

supply and exhaust was determined using a

thermoanemometer and a flow hood. It was found

that net airflow supplied to the range exceeded

that of exhaust by 83%. Design specifications for

the range call for 10,500 cfm of supply air. Only

4,100 cfm was measured, of which about

1,500 cfm was merely being recirculated.

Likewise, the design specifications call for

10,500 cfm of exhaust while only 3,000 cfm was

measured, of which 1,500 cfm was from

recirculated air. These flow rates yield an average

downrange air velocity at the firing line of

approximately 25 fpm, which is below the

ACGIH24 recommendation of 50 fpm.

One of the two gauges that monitor the pressure

drop across the high–efficiency filters of the

recirculation AHU did not work during the second

survey. The second gauge on this AHU registered

0.5 inches water–gauge (in. wg), which is less

than what the manufacturer states is the initial

pressure drop (0.65 in.wg) for these filters even

before they become dirty with use and the

pressure drop increases. Both pressure gauges on

the exhaust–only AHU appeared to be working,

but one of them also reads less than the

manufacturer’s initial pressure drop rating. In

both cases, this indicates that either these pressure

gauges are not yielding accurate readings or there

are leaks in the filter banks through which air

by–passes the filters. Because no lead was

detected on air samples collected in the AHUs

during the second survey, which would have

indicated leakage, it is more likely that the

pressure gauges need to be repaired or replaced.

Currently there is no monitoring system for the

recirculation airstream as required by the OSHA

lead standard.15

When smoke was released behind the firing line,

the airflow patterns within the range were
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

revealed. The airflow past the firing line was not

laminar; two large zones of backflow were created

even without someone standing at the firing line

to create turbulence. One zone of backflow

recirculates air in the area between the supply

inlet to the firing line and back again to the

uprange wall and supply inlet. The second eddy

carries air from bench–height at the firing line to

an area several feet downrange, and then up and

back into the breathing zones of those standing at

the firing line. 

DISCUSSION

Air Sampling

Results from the initial industrial hygiene survey

indicated that range users were exposed to

airborne lead levels in excess of that permitted by

OSHA for an eight hour day. Assuming no other

lead exposure occurred during the day other than

what was measured during sampling, the average

8–hour TWA lead concentration for samples

collected in the range during shooting exercises

was 144 :g/m3

. This is nearly three times the

OSHA PEL. Chronic workplace exposures to

airborne lead at these levels has been reported to

result in local paralysis such as “foot drop” or

“wrist drop.”25

All air samples taken indoors during the second

survey exceeded the OSHA action level, 30 :g/m3

8–hour TWA. Not surprisingly, the highest

8–hour TWA concentration was measured in the

PBZ of the shooter (37–mm = 640 :g/m3

,

IOM = 960 :g/m3

). For side–by–side sampling

done during shooting exercises, the concentration

of lead collected by IOM samplers exceeded that

of the 37–mm cassettes in five of six pairs. This

may indicate that a more accurate measure of lead

exposure can be obtained by using a sampler that

has size–selective sampling efficiencies

approximating those of human breathing. This

would be particularly important when the particle

size distribution of the exposure aerosol is

comprised of a sizeable percentage of particles

larger than 25–30 :m aerodynamic diameter.3

During the second sampling survey no lead was

detected on samples collected in the AHUs

downstream from the filter banks, therefore, it

appears that the ventilation system efficiently

filters the range air before recirculating it.

The range master, who most likely will have the

highest number of exposures in a year, was also

probably overexposed (8–hour TWA 37–mm =

50 :g/m3

). When workers are exposed above the

PEL, the OSHA lead standard (29 CFR

1910.1025) requires that the employer take certain

actions to lower exposures. Some of these

requirements include, but are not limited to, the

following:

• quarterly air monitoring

• engineering and work practice controls to

reduce exposures to below 200 :g/m3

 (if

exposures exceed the PEL for more than

30 days in one year)

• any combination of engineering controls,

work practice controls, and respiratory

protection, once exposures fall below

200 :g/m3

• mandatory respiratory protection program if

exposures not controlled to below the PEL

• written compliance program

• quarterly range ventilation system evaluation

• provide and launder protective clothing such

as coveralls or other such materials

• range users must shower at end of shift, and

store range clothes separately from clean

clothes

• if exposed above the PEL for more than

30 days per year, mandatory medical

surveillance program including blood lead

and zinc protoporphyrin tests

If FPPD could document that by implementing

engineering controls, for example, effective

ventilation, and the range users’ exposures were

below the PEL, many of these mandates of the

standard would no longer apply. The OSHA
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 9

standard itself should be referred to for a full

treatment of the requirements.15

Wipe Sampling

Wipe sampling results revealed high lead

concentrations on surfaces within the range.

Because of the availability of this lead, ingestion

becomes a second route of exposure the FPPD

needs to address. If after shooting, range users do

not thoroughly wash their hands and face, they

may inadvertently ingest lead in addition to that

which they may have inhaled. As well, if their

clothing (including shoes) touches any

contaminated range surfaces, then lead could be

transported from the range into other parts of the

building, personal automobiles, and homes. In

this latter case, the possibility of lead exposure

extends past the range user to include those living

in the same home as the range user. This is of

great concern especially if the officers have

contact with young children, whose bodies more

readily uptake lead than do adults.

Although there are currently no legally

enforceable exposure limits for surface lead dust

levels in occupational settings, it is useful to

compare these results to the EPA Guidelines21 for

residential settings. In residential settings where

a lead abatement project has been completed,

clearance wipe sampling results must fall below

100 :g/ft2

 (for uncarpeted floors) in order for the

residence to be re–occupied. With the exception

of the sample taken on the briefing room table, all

wipes yielded results in excess of this level. As a

group, these results spanned four orders of

magnitude (100–100,000 :g/ft2

). This indicates

that even officers who are not using the range may

be exposed to lead without their knowledge

because it is available even on surfaces used to

prepare coffee, for example.

The wipe collected (FP–8, Table 4) in the AHU

housing downstream of the filter banks indicates

that there is still lead in the unit that is potentially

available to be re–entrained into the airstream and

recirculated into the range. Because the most

recent air sampling results demonstrate that the

filters effectively filter the air that passes through

them, this lead in the AHU likely accumulated

during the time when the system was operated

without all the filters in place.

Ventilation

Achieving the correct balance between air supply

and exhaust is a first step in limiting the risk of

occupational lead exposures resulting from firing

range use. The second key step is to have

adequate and uniform airflow within the range,

from the uprange end near the firing line to the

downrange end near the bullet trap and main

ventilation exhaust plenum. Even when the

volumetric airflow within the range is adequate, if

it is too turbulent it can result in eddy currents and

backflow which recirculate lead fume and other

contaminants back into the breathing zone of

range users. The latter condition was observed

during shooting exercises, and was clearly

demonstrated after shooting exercises were

finished by using a fog machine to create a large

cloud of visible aerosol. The location of the air

supply inlet in the ceiling by the uprange wall

behind the firing line creates eddies, resulting in

two large recirculation zones. One zone

recirculates air in the area between the supply

inlet to the firing line and back again to the

uprange wall and supply inlet. The second eddy

carries air from bench–height at the firing line to

an area several feet downrange, and then up and

back into the breathing zones of those standing at

the firing line. 

One of the keys to any effective control measure

involves maintaining it in a workable condition so

that it provides the same measure of protection at

all times. Currently there is no maintenance

schedule for the range’s AHUs. Reportedly, the

filters had all been changed over one year ago, but

currently no one is in charge of monitoring the

filters. A visual inspection of the filters revealed

that, while some of them appear to be relatively

new, others appear quite old, displaying
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

manufacturer’s inspection stickers dated April 7,

1981.

Recirculating air, rather than bringing in 100%

fresh air, can be a cost–saving tool especially

effective if the air has already been tempered or

humidified. Because of the concern for

re–introducing contaminated air into the

workplace, the OSHA lead standard has certain

requirements for ventilation systems which

recirculate a portion of the filtered airstream back

into the workplace. Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) states “If

air from exhaust ventilation is recirculated into the

workplace, the employer shall assure that (A) the

system has a high efficiency filter with reliable

back–up filter; and (B) controls to monitor the

concentration of lead in the return air and to

bypass the recirculation system automatically if it

fails are installed, operating, and maintained.”

The ventilation system of the FPPD is not

designed to comply with part B of this

requirement of the standard because there is no

monitoring or bypass mechanism in place.

Although air sampling during the last survey

indicated that the air being reintroduced into the

range is free from detectable amounts of lead,

there is no mechanism in place which would alert

FPPD should filter breakthrough occur. Nor is

there a means to bypass the recirculation loop and

bring 100% fresh air into the range.

CONCLUSIONS

Air sampling results from two industrial hygiene

surveys conducted at the FPPD firing range

indicate that even while the general ventilation

system is operating, range users can be

overexposed to lead within a short time (about one

hour). The ventilation system, in its current

condition, is inadequate to control exposures of

range users, range masters, and workers in areas

adjacent to the range. Specifically, the

pressurization of the range, average downrange air

velocity near the firing line, and airflow

characteristics within the range minimize the

effectiveness of the ventilation system. Both air

and wipe samples indicate that lead is escaping

from the range into surrounding work areas of the

police station, and that breakthrough may have

occurred in the rooftop AHU filter banks during

or prior to the July 1997 survey. Inhalable lead

particles contribute to one’s total exposure (in

addition to those only in the respirable fraction)

when they are ingested. Therefore, using true

inhalable samplers for airborne lead exposure

assessments in indoor firing ranges may provide

a more accurate measure of exposure than

traditional closed face 37–mm cassette samplers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To reduce exposures to lead for all workers at the

FPPD, the following recommendations are

offered:

1. The uniformity of downrange airflow should

be improved to decrease or eliminate the eddies

which currently cause backflow of weapons fire

contaminants into the breathing zones of range

users. NIOSH has successfully developed

engineering controls, based on a “double–open

pegboard” design which can dramatically improve

the uniformity of airflow within firing ranges

when implemented correctly.26

2. The firing range should be maintained under

negative pressure (air flows from surrounding

areas into the range) when the ventilation system

is running while at the same time maintaining

adequate volumetric flow to assure an average

downrange air velocity of 50 fpm at the firing

line. This will require a ventilation professional

skilled in pressure balancing ventilation systems.

The firing range ventilation system should be in

operation at all times while the range is in use and

during clean–up.

3. Written SOPs for preventive maintenance on

the ventilation system should be developed and

implemented to assure that filters are maintained

and changed as needed, adequate airflow within

the range is maintained, pressure gauges work
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 11

correctly, and filter breakthrough can be detected

if it occurs. Part of the initial effort should

include cleaning the interior surfaces of the

recirculation AHU where lead dust has

accumulated downstream of the filter banks.

Proper personal protection equipment should be

worn by cleanup personnel.

4. After each use, the floor of the firing range

should be thoroughly cleaned with a HEPA

vacuum cleaner designed to collect lead dust. Dry

sweeping should never be used in the range. The

vacuum cleaner should have a plastic bag liner. A

non–evaporating liquid, such as a light oil, should

be placed inside the liner to wet the gun powder

and therefore prevent combustion.

5. To minimize the accumulation of leaded dust

on outer garments, if shooting is done from a

prone position the floor should first be covered

with a disposable material.

6. To avoid dermal contact with lead on the

spent cartridges and the floor, cartridges should be

gathered using a floor squeegee (or with some

other implement that would not generate more

airborne lead dust) and picked up using a dust pan

or a HEPA vacuum cleaner (assuming that doing

so does not result in spark generation). 

7. Surfaces inside the range should be cleaned

routinely with a high phosphate detergent, such as

trisodium phosphate, to reduce surface lead

contamination. There are also cleaning agents on

the market that are specifically designed for this

application.

8. Eating, drinking, and smoking inside the

range should be prohibited to eliminate possible

lead ingestion by hand–to–mouth contact.

9. Employees should be provided with two

lockers to allow them to separate street clothes

from lead–contaminated work clothes.

10. Eating, drinking, smoking, and hand contact

with other people, especially children, should be

avoided after working in the firing range, until

personnel have showered and changed clothes.

11. Personnel performing clean–up of lead at the

trap should wear appropriate respiratory

protection (for example, the appropriate NIOSH

approved respirator equipped with HEPA filters)

and full protective outer clothing (which may be

disposable). Personnel performing the clean–up

should be included in a respiratory protection

program. After clean–up, they should remove

their outer clothing inside the range area to

prevent spreading lead to other parts of the

building. Non–disposable outer protective

clothing should be laundered by the employer or

a contractor. It should not be laundered by the

employees at their homes.

12. Enough time should be allowed for the

ventilation system to remove airborne lead fume

and dust before personnel are allowed downrange.

The amount of time needed to adequately remove

the airborne lead fume and dust should be

determined after the ventilation system is adjusted

according to the recommendations in this report.

At that time, further air monitoring will be needed

to determine how the lead concentration in the

range decreases across various time intervals.

13. Non–lead or copper–jacketed bullets should

be used because they have been shown to reduce

lead emissions. Substituting copper–jacketed

slugs has been shown to provide significant

reduction in lead emission compared with

traditional lead ammunition in some situations.27

However, there will still be some lead generated

during shooting from the combustion of primer,

which contains lead styphnate and lead peroxide.

14. If engineering controls that lower exposures

are not effectively implemented, instructors,

regular range users, and maintenance personnel

may need to undergo periodic blood testing. The

OSHA lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025) requires

biological monitoring of lead exposed workers

every six months for those exposed above the
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

 1. NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP: Method

no. 7300. In: Eller PM, ed. NIOSH Manual of

analytical methods, 4th rev. ed. Cincinnati, OH:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)

Publication No. 94–113.

2. Mark D, Vincent JH [1986]. A new personal

sampler for airborne total dust in workplaces.

Ann. of Occ Hyg (30)1:89–102.

3. Mark D, Lyons CP, Upton SL, Kenny LC

[1994]. Wind tunnel testing of the sampling

efficiency of personal inhalable aerosol samplers.

J Aerosol Sci (25)suppl1:339–340.

4. NIOSH [1994]. Particulates Not Otherwise

Regulated, Total: Method number 0500. In: Eller

PM, ed. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods,

4th rev. ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Public Health

Service, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication

No. 94–113.

5. NIOSH [1994]. LEAD by GFAAS: Method

number 7105. In: Eller PM, ed. NIOSH Manual

of analytical methods, 4th rev. ed. Cincinnati,

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS

(NIOSH) Publication No. 94–113.

6. NIOSH [1994]. LEAD in Surface Wipe

Samples: Method number 9100. In: Eller PM, ed.

NIOSH Manual of analytical methods, 4th rev. ed.

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94–113.

7. NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for

occupational safety and health: compendium of

policy documents and statements. Cincinnati,

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for

Disease Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)

Publication No. 92–100.

8. ACGIH [1998]. 1998 TLVs® and BEIs®:

threshold limit values for chemical substances and

physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

9. Code of Federal Regulations [1997]. 29 CFR

1910.1000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, Federal Register.

10. Hernberg S, et al. [1988]. Lead and its

compounds. In: Occupational medicine. 2nd ed.

Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers.

11. Landrigan PJ, et al. [1985]. Body lead

burden: summary of epidemiological data on its

relation to environmental sources and toxic

effects. In: Dietary and environmental lead:

human health effects. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science Publishers.

12. Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML

[1991]. Lead. In: Chemical hazards of the

workplace. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B.

Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, pp 353–357.

13. NIOSH [1978]. Occupational exposure to

inorganic lead. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health

Service, Center for Disease Control, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78–158.

8–hour TWA action level of 30 :g/m3 for more

than 30 days per year.

REFERENCES
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 13

14. Pirkle JL, et al. [1994]. The decline in blood

lead levels in the United States, the National

Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys

(NHANES). JAMA, 272:284–291.

15. Code of Federal Regulations [1992]. OSHA

lead standard. 29 CFR, Part 1910.1025.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, Federal Register. 

16. ACGIH [1997]. 1997–1998 Threshold Limit

Values for chemical substances and physical

agents and Biological Exposure Indices.

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

17. DHHS [1990]. Healthy people 2000:

national health promotion and disease objectives.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service,

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91–50212.

18. ATSDR [1990]. Toxicological profile for

lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry. DHHS (ATSDR) Publication No.

TP–88/17.

19. Grandjean P, Bach E [1986]. Indirect

exposures: the significance of bystanders at work

and at home. Am Ind Hyg Assoc

J 47(12):819–824.

20. Farfel MR and Chisholm JJ [1990]. Health

and environmental outcomes of traditional and

modified practices for abatement of residential

lead–based paint. Am J Pub Health, 80:10,

1240–1245.

21. EPA [1994]. Guidance on residential

lead–based paint, lead–contaminated dust, and

lead–contaminated soil. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Memorandum from Lynn Goldman, Assistant

Administrator, July, 14, 1994.

22. CDC [1991]. Preventing lead poisoning in

young children: a statement by the Centers for

Disease Control – October 1991. Atlanta, GA:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control.

23. Brody, DJ, et al. [1994]. Blood lead levels in

the US population, phase 1 on the third National

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES III, 1988 to 1991). JAMA 272:

277–283.

24. ACGIH [1995]. Indoor pistol and small–bore

rifle range ventilation. In: Industrial ventilation:

a manual of recommended practice. 22nd ed.

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists, p. 10–167.

25. Feldman RG, Hayes MK, Younes R, Aldrich

FD [1977]. Lead neuropathy in adults and

children. Arch Neurol 34:481–488.

26. Crouch, KG, Peng, T, Murdock, D [1991].

Ventilation control of lead in indoor firing ranges:

inlet configuration and booth and fluctuating flow

contributions. Am Ind Hyg J 52(2):81–91.

27. Tripath RK, Sherertz PC, Llewellyn GC,

Armstrong CW, Ramsey SL [1990]. Reducing

exposures to airborne lead in a covered, outdoor

firing range by using totally copper–jacketed

bullets. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 51(1):28–31.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

 Table 1

Area and PBZ Airborne Lead Concentrations

Forest Park Police Department Indoor Firing Range

Forest Park, Ohio

July 29, 1997

HETA 97–0255–2735

Sample

Number

Location Sampled Sample

Type

Sample

Time

(minutes)

Lead

Concentration

(μg/m3

)**

Lead

Concentration 

(μg/m3

), 8–hr

TWA

*A–1 Uprange wall behind booth 3 Area 60 nd nd

*A–2 Above booths 4/5, just behind

firing line

Area 60 nd nd

*A–3 Uprange wall behind booth 2 Area 60 trace trace

*A–4 Downrange ceiling near bullet

trap

Area 62 nd nd

*A–5 Halfway downrange, ceiling Area 63 nd nd

A–6 Booth 3 PBZ 43 1460 130

A–7 Booth 2 PBZ 44 1890 170

A–8 Uprange wall behind booth 3 Area 57 1170 140

A–9 Above booths 4/5, just behind

firing line

Area 57 1610 190

A–10 Uprange wall behind bay 2 Area 59 280 30

A–11 Downrange ceiling near bullet

trap

Area 61 1370 170

A–12 Halfway downrange, ceiling Area 63 1390 180

A–13 Rooftop: makeup air inlet Area 68 30 4

A–14 Rooftop: midrange exhaust Area 69 50 7

A–15 Control booth Area 66 180 25

A–16 Hallway by control booth Area 68 200 30

Evaluation Criteria ACGIH Threshold Limit

Value

OSHA Permissible

Exposure Limit

50

50

* Sample collected prior to shooting nd = not detected

** Indicates Time–Weighted Average PBZ = Personal Breathing Zone

over the sample time for that sample trace = between Limit Of Detection and Limit Of Quanitification
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 15

Table 2

Area and PBZ Total Dust Concentrations

Forest Park Police Department Indoor Firing Range

Forest Park, Ohio

December 10, 1998

HETA 97–0255–2735

Sample

Number

Location Sampled Sample

Type

Sample

Time

(minutes)

Dust

Concentration

(mg/m3

)*

Dust

Concentration 

(mg/m3

), 8–hr

TWA

P–1 ceiling, near bullet trap area, 37mm 73 nd nd

P–1a ceiling, near bullet trap area, IOM 73 nd nd

P–2 ceiling, midrange area, 37mm 74 nd nd

P–3 rooftop, exhaust–only AHU area, 37mm 89 nd nd

P–4 recirculation AHU housing area, 37mm 94 nd nd

P–5 control room area, 37mm 69 nd nd

P–6 uprange wall area, 37mm 73 nd nd

P–6a uprange wall area, IOM 72 nd nd

P–7 uprange wall, near door area, 37mm 70 nd nd

P–8 above booth #3 area, 37mm 72 nd nd

S–1 ceiling, near bullet trap area, 37mm 91 0.63 0.12

S–1a ceiling, near bullet trap area, IOM 95 1.48 0.29

S–2 ceiling, midrange area, 37mm 97 1.61 0.33

S–2a ceiling, midrange area, IOM 97 2.22 0.45

S–3 rooftop, exhaust–only AHU area, 37mm 101 nd nd

S–4 recirculation AHU housing area, 37mm 101 nd nd

S–5 control room area, 37mm 79 0.226 0.04

S–6 uprange wall area, 37mm 101 0.25 0.05

S–6a uprange wall area, IOM 94 0.9 0.18

S–7 uprange wall, near door area, 37mm 99 0.15 0.03

S–8 above booth #3 area, 37mm 101 2.11 0.44

S–8a above booth #3 area, IOM 94 2.02 0.4
Table 2–continued

Sample

Number

Location Sampled Sample

Type

Sample

Time

(minutes)

Dust

Concentration

(mg/m3

)*

Dust

Concentration 

(mg/m3

), 8–hr

TWA

Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

S–9 range master PBZ, 37mm 65 0.39 0.05

S–9a range master PBZ, IOM 65 0.93 0.13

S–10 shooter PBZ, 37mm 80 3.23 0.54

S–10a shooter PBZ, IOM 78 7.79 1.27

S–11 environmental area, 37mm 87 nd nd

Evaluation Criteria ACGIH Threshold Limit

Value

OSHA Permissible

Exposure Limit

10

15

PBZ = Personal Breathing Zone * Indicates Time–Weighted Average 

nd = not detected over the sample time for that sample

P–series samples collected prior to shooting,

S–series samples collected during shooting
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 17

Table 3

Area and PBZ Airborne Lead Concentration

Forest Park Police Department Indoor Firing Range

Forest Park, Ohio

December 10, 1998

HETA 97–0255–2735

Sample

Number

Location Sampled Sample

Type

Sample

Time

(minutes)

Lead

Concentration

(μg/m3

)*

Lead

Concentration 

(μg/m3

), 8–hour

TWA

P–1 ceiling, near bullet trap area, 37mm 73 nd nd

P–1a ceiling, near bullet trap area, IOM 73 nd nd

P–2 ceiling, midrange area, 37mm 74 nd nd

P–3 rooftop, exhaust–only AHU area, 37mm 89 nd nd

P–4 recirculation AHU housing area, 37mm 94 nd nd

P–5 control room area, 37mm 69 nd nd

P–6 uprange wall area, 37mm 73 nd nd

P–6a uprange wall area, IOM 72 nd nd

P–7 uprange wall, near door area, 37mm 70 nd nd

P–8 above booth #3 area, 37mm 72 nd nd

S–1 ceiling, near bullet trap area, 37mm 91 680 130

S–1a ceiling, near bullet trap area, IOM 95 1110 220

S–2 ceiling, midrange area, 37mm 97 1320 270

S–2a ceiling, midrange area, IOM 97 5900 960

S–3 rooftop, exhaust–only AHU area, 37mm 101 nd nd

S–4 recirculation AHU housing area, 37mm 101 nd nd

S–5 control room area, 37mm 79 230 40

S–6 uprange wall area, 37mm 101 220 50

S–6a uprange wall area, IOM 94 690 135

S–7 uprange wall, near door area, 37mm 99 196 40

S–8 above booth #3 area, 37mm 101 2060 430

S–8a above booth #3 area, IOM 94 1120 220
Table 3–continued

Sample

Number

Location Sampled Sample

Type

Sample

Time

(minutes)

Lead

Concentration

(μg/m3

)*

Lead

Concentration 

(μg/m3

), 8–hour

TWA

Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

S–9 range master PBZ, 37mm 65 370 50

S–9a range master PBZ, IOM 65 740 100

S–10 shooter PBZ, 37mm 80 3860 640

S–10a shooter PBZ, IOM 78 5910 960

S–11 environmental area, 37mm 87 nd nd

Evaluation Criteria ACGIH Threshold Limit

Value

OSHA Permissible

Exposure Limit

50

50

P–series samples collected prior to shooting nd = not detected

S–series samples collected during shooting PBZ = Personal breathing Zone

*Indicates Time–Weighted Average 

over the sample time for that sample
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255 Page 19

Table 4

Surface Wipe Lead Concentrations

Forest Park Police Department Indoor Firing Range

Forest Park, Ohio

July 29, 1997 and December 10, 1998

HETA 97–0255–2735

Sample Number Location Sampled Lead Concentration (μg/ft2

)

W–1 inner surface of curved air diffuser

behind booth 3

54,800

W–2 shooting bench tray table, booth 2 7,250

W–3 control room table top 360

FP–1 inner surface of curved air diffuser

behind booth 2

102,190

FP–1a inner surface of curved air diffuser

behind booth 2

102,190

FP–2 shooting bench tray table, booth 3 22,300

FP–2a shooting bench tray table, booth 3 16,720

FP–3 hallway floor outside range 1,670

FP–3a hallway floor outside range 450

FP–4 men’s locker room 130

FP–5 coffee table by soft drink machines 850

FP–6 briefing room center table, top trace

FP–7 control room table top 1,300

FP–7a control room table top 1,300

FP–8 recirculation AHU housing 1,670

μg/ft2

 = micrograms per square foot W–series from 1997 survey, FP–series from 1998 survey

trace = between Limit of Detection and 

Limit of Quantification
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 97–0255

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) Study of Lead Exposures to Firing Range Users

What NIOSH Did

# Collected air samples for lead before and during

shooting exercises

# Collected surface samples for lead in the range

and in the building areas just outside the range

# Measured the airflow through the range’s

ventilation system

# Used a smoke machine to see the airflow patterns

in the range

What NIOSH Found

# Shooters are being exposed to too much lead when

they use the range.

# Lead is escaping from the range and

contaminating other work areas.

# The range’s ventilation system doesn’t supply

enough air to move the smoke downrange fast

enough.

# The range’s air supply inlet makes the smoke

recirculate back to where the shooter can breath it

in.

# There is no way to tell if the range’s ventilation

system filters are doing a good job.

What Forest Park Police Department

Managers Can Do

# Improve ventilation to lower lead exposures to

shooters to as far below 50 μg/m3

 as possible.

# Develop a written lead program so officers know

how to protect themselves.

# Have the range and indoor areas outside the range

cleaned regularly.

# Make airflow enter the range instead of leave it.

# Write and follow standard operating procedures

for ventilation system maintenance.

What Forest Park Police Department

Employees Can Do

# Be sure to wash hands and face after shooting.

# If after the ventilation system is fixed you can still

smell gunsmoke outside the range when the range

door is shut, report it to the range master.

# After shooting, shower and change into a set of

clean clothes before going home and wash the set

you used on the range. Don’t wash the dirty

clothes at home.

# When shooting from a prone position, put down a

disposable floor covering (like paper) first.

CDC CENTERS FOR DISEASE

CONTROL

AND PREVENTION

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you

would like a copy, either ask your health and

safety representative to make you a copy or call

at 1–513–841–4252 and ask for

HETA Report # 97–0255–2735
For Information on Other

Occupational Safety and Health Concerns

Call NIOSH at:

1–800–35–NIOSH (356–4676)

or visit the NIOSH Homepage at:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

!

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention