HETA 96-0218-2623

New Hampshire Police Standards

and Training Council

Concord, New Hampshire

David C. Sylvain, M.S., CIH

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 David C. Sylvain, M.S., CIH, of the Hazard Evaluations and Technical

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

assistance was provided by Teresa Ferrara, Industrial Hygienist, Occupational Health and Safety Program,

New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services. Desktop publishing by Pat Lovell.

Copies of this report have been sent to management representatives at the New Hampshire Police Standards

and Training Council and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely

reproduced. Single copies of this report will be available for three years. 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 96-0218-2623

New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council

Concord, New Hampshire

January 1997

David C. Sylvain, M.S., CIH

SUMMARY

In July 1996, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a Health Hazard

Evaluation (HHE) request from the Building Services Supervisor at the New Hampshire Police Standards and

Training facility in Concord, New Hampshire. Although no adverse health effects had been reported, the request

was prompted by concern about potential staff and recruit exposures to lead at the James S. Noyes Firearms

Training Facility. In response to this request, NIOSH conducted a site visit on September 19 - 20, 1996, which

included environmental sampling and a walk-through inspection of the facility.

A total of 15 personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples and two area air samples were collected and analyzed for

lead. In addition, seven wipe samples were collected from surfaces in and around the firing range, along with one

bulk sample collected from floor sweepings in the range.

The highest airborne lead concentrations were measured in the two samples collected during maintenance

activities: 22 micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3

) during routine weekly cleaning (sweeping), and 140 μg/m3

during the cleaning of three target-retrieval rails. Lead was detected in all air samples collected during firearms

training; six of these samples produced quantifiable results ranging from 0.7 to 9.5 μg/m3

. Area samples collected

in the control room and the indoor running track revealed concentrations below the minimum detectable

concentration (MDC) (control room: < 0.06 μg/m3; track: < 0.1 μg/m3

). Wipe sampling revealed lead

concentrations on sampled surfaces ranging from 2.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters of surface area (μg/100 cm2

) on a kitchenette countertop, to 1100 μg/100 cm2 in a gun-cleaning tray in a classroom. Analysis of the bulk

sample indicated 45,000 μg-lead/g-sample (41⁄2percent lead) in floor sweepings.

Firearms training did not present a health hazard due to exposure to airborne lead. It appeared that some

exposure to lead could occur from lead surface contamination in and around the range; however, ingestion

of lead can be avoided through good hygiene practices. 

Lead exposure during routine range cleaning did not exceed the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL); however, this exposure was unnecessarily

high, and should be reduced by cleaning the floor with a HEPA-filter equipped vacuum cleaner, rather

than dry sweeping. Air sampling conducted during the cleaning of three target-retrieval rails indicates

that lead concentrations are likely to exceed the OSHA PEL during the annual cleaning of all twenty rails.

This exposure, although infrequent, could be reduced through the use of a HEPA-filter equipped vacuum

cleaner. A respiratory protection program should be established to ensure the reliability of respiratory

protection used during maintenance operations.

Keywords: SIC 9221 (police protection), indoor firing ranges, lead.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

Introduction ......................................................................... 2

Background ......................................................................... 2

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

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

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

Lead-childhood exposure ........................................................ 5

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218

INTRODUCTION

In July 1996, the National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a Health

Hazard Evaluation (HHE) request from the Building

Services Supervisor at the New Hampshire Police

Standards and Training facility in Concord, New

Hampshire. Although no adverse health effects had

been reported, the request was prompted by concern

about potential staff and recruit exposures to lead at

the James S. Noyes Firearms Training Facility. 

A site visit was conducted on September 19-20,

1996, which included a walk-through inspection of

the facility, and air sampling for lead during range

cleaning and firearms training. Wipe samples were

collected to evaluate lead contamination on surfaces

in and around the firing range. Monitoring for noise

and carbon monoxide was conducted during firearms

training by an industrial hygienist from the New

Hampshire Division of Public Health Services

Occupational Health and Safety Program. The

results of noise and carbon monoxide monitoring

were provided in a State report to the Director of

Police Standards and Training.

BACKGROUND

The James S. Noyes Firearms Training Facility was

constructed approximately four years ago on the

second floor of the New Hampshire Police Standards

and Training Council building. The range consists of

20 firing booths, and occupies an area approximately

85 feet long by 80 feet wide. Targets are controlled

from the control room, which is separated from the

range by a wall and large observation window. The

range has a dedicated ventilation system which was

reported to exhaust 58,000 cubic feet of air per

minute (cfm). Air is supplied to the range through

perforations in the wall behind the firing line, and is

exhausted at the bullet trap. 

New Hampshire Police Standards and Training

conducts 12-week police recruit training sessions

under the direction of State Police instructors.

Firearms instruction includes weekly sessions at the

range that last approximately three hours. During

this period, each recruit trains and qualifies using

weapons and ammunition provided by the

department where the recruit is employed. On the

sampling date, recruits fired jacketed, lead-primer

ammunition using a variety of semiautomatic pistols.

The class was divided into groups of approximately

12 recruits who would be firing at any one time.

Firing occurred in relays, with thirty-six rounds

being fired by each recruit per relay. The number of

relays per recruit ranged from three to eight,

depending upon whether the recruit qualified at the

end of the third relay. 

A maintenance person cleans the range and sweeps

the floor with a push-broom once a week. The

target-retrieval rails are vacuumed and wiped clean

approximately once each year. An outside contractor

is hired to clean the trap; however, it was reported

that maintenance employees occasionally enter the

trap area for periods of up to one hour. The high

efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in the air

handler will be changed by building maintenance

staff as needed.

METHODS

On September 19, 1996, personal breathing zone air

samples were collected on a maintenance worker

while he cleaned three of twenty target-retrieval rails,

and then performed routine, weekly range cleaning.

On September 20, PBZ air samples were collected

on three recruits selected from each of two groups

(six recruits, total). The sampling cassettes were

changed after each group fired the first relay;

cassettes were plugged, and pumps were turned-off

between the second and third relays. Upon

completion of the third relay, one sampled recruit

returned to the range with several other recruits, and

fired five consecutive relays without leaving the

range. A PBZ sample was collected on one of two

instructors who remained in the range throughout the

session. Area air samples were collected in the

control room, and in the indoor running track that

encircles the firing range. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218 Page 3

Each sample was collected using a battery-powered

sampling pump to draw air through a 37-millimeter

(mm) diameter, 0.8 micrometer (μm) pore-size

mixed cellulose ester (MCE) membrane filter

mounted in a closed-face cassette. The pumps were

operated at a nominal flow rate of 2.5 liters per

minute (lpm), and were calibrated before and after

sampling to ensure that the desired flow rate was

maintained throughout the sampling period. Air

samples were analyzed for lead using an inductively

coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectrometer

according to NIOSH Method 7300 (modified).

Samples, in which lead was not detected, were reanalyzed using a more sensitive method (NIOSH

Method 7105).

Wash’n DriTM wipes were used to collect seven

surface wipe samples from locations in and around

the range for lead analysis according NIOSH Method

9100. Each wipe sample was collected from a

100 cm2

 area using a 10 cm by 10 cm plastic

template. Using a new pair of disposable latex

gloves for each sample, a wipe was removed from its

protective package, and the area within the template

was wiped with firm pressure, using three or four

vertical S-strokes. The exposed area of the pad was

folded in, and the area was wiped using three or four

horizontal strokes. The pad was folded once more,

and the area was wiped with three or four vertical

strokes. The folded pad was then placed in a

disposable scintillation vial. A clean template and

new pair of gloves were used for each sample. Care

was taken to use the same technique and wiping

pressure for each sample to reduce variation in

collection efficiency. 

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

preexisting 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 becomes

available.

The primary sources of environmental evaluation

criteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSH

Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs)1

, (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists' (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVsTM)2

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

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)3

.

In July 1992, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

vacated the 1989 OSHA PEL Air Contaminants

Standard. OSHA is currently enforcing the 1971

standards; however, some states operating their own

OSHA approved job safety and health programs

continue to enforce the 1989 limits. NIOSH

encourages employers to follow the 1989 OSHA

limits, the NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or

whichever is the more protective 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 and that

the OSHA PELs included in this report reflect the

1971 values.
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218

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 leadcontaminated 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."4, 5, 6

 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.7

 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.8

Under the OSHA general industry lead standard

(29 CFR 1910.1025), the PEL for airborne exposure

to lead is 50 μg/m3

 (8-hour TWA).3 The standard

requires lowering the PEL for shifts exceeding eight

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. The OSHA interim final rule for

lead in the construction industry (29 CFR 1926.62)

provides an equivalent level of protection to

construction workers. ACGIH has adopted a TLV

for lead of 50 μg/m3

 (8-hour TWA), with worker

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

designation of lead as an animal carcinogen.2

 The

U.S. Public Health Service has established a goal, by

the year 2000, to eliminate all occupational

exposures that result in BLLs greater than 25 μg/dL.9

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, with no apparent threshold through

less than 10 μg/dL. Fetal exposure to lead is

associated with reduced gestational age, birth weight,

and early mental development with maternal BLLs

as low as 10 to 15 μg/dL.10 Men and women who

are planning on having children should limit their

exposure to lead. 

The BLL of law enforcement trainees using a poorly

ventilated firing range for an average of 7.2 hours

during their first month of training rose from a mean

of six μg/dL to 51 μg/dL (range 31-73 μg/dL).11

Assuming a linear relationship between hours of

exposure and BLL, employees using or working in

this firing range more than 3.6 hours per month were

found to be at risk for BLL rising above 40 μg/dL.

When using a poorly ventilated range, range masters

or instructors should have their BLL checked at least

every six months; law enforcement trainees should

be checked approximately three weeks after training

begins. Individuals using or working at the range for

more than three hours per month, should have their
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218 Page 5

BLL checked. 

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.10

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.12 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 blood lead levels 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.13 However,

it was estimated from the survey that 8.9% of U.S.

children under six years, or about 1.7 million

children, have elevated BLLs ($10 μg/dL).

In homes with a family member occupationally

exposed to lead, care must be taken to prevent lead

from being carried into the home on clothing, skin,

and hair, and in vehicles. High BLLs in resident

children, and elevated concentrations of lead in

house dust, have been found in homes of workers

employed in industries associated with high lead

exposure.14 Particular effort should be made to

ensure that children of persons who work in areas of

high lead exposure receive a BLL test.

RESULTS

The results of air sampling for lead are presented in

Table 1. Air samples were analyzed for lead

according to NIOSH Method 7300 (inductively

coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy).

Samples with nondetectable or nonquantifiable

results were re-analyzed according to NIOSH

Method 7105 (graphite furnace-atomic absorption

spectroscopy). 

The highest airborne lead concentrations were

measured in the two samples collected during

maintenance activities: 22 μg/m3

 during routine

weekly cleaning (sweeping), and 140 μg/m3 during

the cleaning of three target-retrieval rails. Only two

of the 13 samples, collected on six recruits and one

instructor during firearms training on the following

day, revealed lead concentrations between the

minimum detectable concentration (MDC) and

minimum quantifiable concentration (MQC) when

analyzed according to NIOSH Method 7300. When

the analysis was repeated using Method 7105, lead

was detected in all air samples collected during

firearms training. Six of the samples produced

quantifiable results ranging from 0.7 to 9.5 μg/m3

.

Area samples collected in the control room and the

indoor running track revealed concentrations below

the MDC (control room: < 0.06 μg/m3

; track:

< 0.1 μg/m3

).

Wipe sampling results are presented in Table 2.

Analysis of wipe samples indicated that lead

concentrations on sampled surfaces ranged from

2.5 μg/100 cm2

 on a kitchenette countertop, to

1100 μg/100 cm2

 in a gun-cleaning tray in a

classroom. Analysis of a bulk sample of floor

sweepings revealed 45,000 μg-lead/g-sample

(41⁄2 percent lead).
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218

DISCUSSION

Air sampling indicates that the 8-hour time-weighted

average lead exposures on the sampling date were

well below the OSHA PEL during firearms training.

Assuming that this training session represents

conditions during typical handgun training sessions

(e.g., types of weapons and ammunition, number of

rounds fired, length of time in the range),

overexposure to airborne lead during firearms

training appears to be unlikely. However, it should

be noted that these sampling results do not represent

the exposure of officers when firing shotguns or

other weapons which may generate greater (or

lesser) lead concentrations than the service pistols

that were used during this session. 

Air sampling conducted during routine range

cleaning indicates that worker exposure to airborne

lead was below the OSHA PEL. Nevertheless,

exposure to airborne lead could be further reduced

by using a HEPA-equipped vacuum cleaner instead

of dry-sweeping. Dry sweeping, as is done during

weekly range cleaning, creates a dust cloud which

contributes to worker exposure. A HEPA-equipped

vacuum cleaner would capture lead-containing dust,

rather than dispersing it throughout the range, where

the dust can contribute to an unnecessarily high

worker exposure. 

Target rail cleaning generated considerable airborne

lead during a 47-minute sample period. Since only

three of twenty target rails were cleaned at this time,

it is reasonable to expect a much greater exposure

when all twenty rails receive an annual cleaning.

Assuming 15-minutes per rail and an airborne lead

concentration of 140 μg/m3

 throughout the cleaning

process, the 8-hour TWA exposure during rail

cleaning is estimated at 90 μg/m3

; almost twice the

OSHA PEL of 50 μg/m3

. Target rail cleaning was

performed using a portable canister vacuum cleaner

which was not equipped with HEPA filters. A

HEPA-filtered central vacuum system is installed in

the range; however, it was reported that shotgun

wads and other large debris clog the HEPA filters,

thus making this system difficult to use. 

Personal protective equipment (PPE) worn during

target rail, and routine (weekly) cleaning included a

Tyvek® suit, disposable shoe covers, gloves, and a

half-face respirator equipped with HEPA filters. The

suit and shoe covers help prevent contamination of

clothing and skin, as well as minimizing the

likelihood that lead will be taken home on shoes and

clothing. The respirator was equipped with the

correct filters, and should provide adequate

protection against inhalable lead dust assuming that

it fits well, and is maintained properly; however, a

respiratory protection program had not been

established to ensure the reliability of the respirator.

A respiratory protection program, as outlined in the

OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR

1910.134) requires that employees be trained in the

use of respirators and that they be fit tested. Training

of employees is to assure that the worker knows the

types of exposure the respirator provides protection

against, as well as how to wear, check, and maintain

the respirator. The fit testing requirement is to assure

that the selected mask does indeed fit the wearer.

Even though it appears that routine exposure to lead

during range cleaning is unlikely to exceed the PEL,

respiratory protection should be worn to reduce

exposure to airborne lead dust. 

Wipe sample results indicated the presence of lead

on various surfaces in the building. There are

currently no Federal standards governing the level of

lead in surface dust in occupational settings;

however, lead-contaminated surfaces may represent

a potential exposure to lead through ingestion. This

may occur either by direct hand-to-mouth contact

with the dust, or indirectly from hand-to-mouth

contact via clothing, cigarettes, or food contaminated

by lead dust. The presence of a low (but measurable)

concentration of lead on the kitchenette countertop in

the John D. Morton Conference Room indicates the

presence of lead which may have originated in the

firing range. The sample collected from the

countertop in the passageway outside the firearms

training facility, where coffee and donuts were

served, revealed 5.8 μg/100 cm2

. Lead contamination on the sole of a shoe cover worn by one of

the investigators during the sampling visit

demonstrates the potential for carrying lead out of
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218 Page 7

the range on footwear. Individuals working in or

using the range should be advised of the exposure

potential from carrying lead home on shoes worn in

the range (especially if there are small children at

home). 

Ventilation smoke tubes were used to determine if

the range was under negative pressure with respect to

the area outside the range near the entry, and

presumably, other areas within the building. Smoke

tube traces, released near the door entering the range,

flowed into the range while the ventilation system

was operating and the door was held ajar. This

indicated negative pressure within the range: a

desirable condition which helps to ensure that

airborne lead will not escape into the indoor track

and other surrounding areas. Area air samples

collected in the control room and indoor track

produced results below the minimum detectable lead

concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

Firearms training in the James S. Noyes Firearms

Training Facility did not present a health hazard due

to exposure to airborne lead. It appeared that some

exposure to lead could occur due to lead

contamination on surfaces in and around the range;

however, ingestion of lead can be avoided through

good hygiene practices. 

Lead exposure during routine range cleaning did not

exceed the OSHA PEL; however, this exposure was

unnecessarily high, and should be reduced by

cleaning the floor with a HEPA-filter equipped

vacuum cleaner, rather than dry sweeping. Air

sampling conducted during the cleaning of three

target rails indicates that lead concentrations are

likely to exceed the OSHA PEL during the annual

cleaning of all twenty rails. This exposure, although

infrequent, could be reduced through the use of a

HEPA-filter equipped vacuum cleaner. A

respiratory protection program should be established

to ensure the reliability of respiratory protection used

during maintenance operations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recruits, range instructors, maintenance staff,

and others who work in the range, should be

instructed in the hazards of lead in firing ranges and

ways to minimize or prevent exposure. Recruit

training provides an excellent opportunity to instill

an awareness of the potential hazard of take-home

lead, and lead exposures that officers may encounter

in other ranges that they will be using throughout

their careers. The New Hampshire Department of

Health and Human Services, Occupational Health

and Safety Program should be contacted to arrange

lead training.

2. The baseline blood lead level should be

determined for maintenance staff, instructors, and

others who regularly work in the range. Baseline

readings provide a basis for monitoring the

accumulation of lead in potentially exposed

individuals. The New Hampshire Occupational

Health and Safety Program may be able to assist in

providing baseline blood lead monitoring for

instructors and staff.

3. Maintenance staff should be fit-tested, and

trained in the selection, use, care, and limitations of

respiratory protection. This is most effectively

accomplished as part of a respiratory protection

program, which should be implemented to ensure the

reliability of respirators.

4. Food, beverages, or tobacco products should not

be used or stored in or near the range. These items

can become contaminated with lead and cause

subsequent absorption of lead during eating,

drinking, or smoking. Workers and users of the

range should be instructed to wash hands and face

before eating, drinking, or smoking. Users of the

range should be instructed to wash after shooting,

handling fired cartridge cases, and after cleaning

weapons. 

5. Care must be taken to prevent lead from being

carried into the home on clothing, skin, hair, and

shoes. Shoes worn in the range should not be worn
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218

1. 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.

2. ACGIH [1996]. 1996 threshold limit

values for chemical substances and physical

agents and biological exposure indices. 

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

3. Code of Federal Regulations [1993]. 29

CFR 1910. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, Federal Register.

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

compounds. In: Occupational medicine. 2nd

ed. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical

Publishers.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. NIOSH [1978]. Occupational exposure

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

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication

No. 78-158.

8. 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.

9. 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.

home. Clothes worn in the range should be washed

separately from the family wash. Recruits should be

advised that small children and pregnant women are

especially susceptible to adverse health effects from

exposure to even small amounts of lead.

6. The high lead concentration measured during

target rail cleaning indicates that the use of a

commercial vacuum cleaner is dispersing leadcontaminated dust throughout the range, resulting in

further surface contamination, and high airborne lead

concentrations. A HEPA-filtered vacuum cleaner

should be used to clean target rails, possibly in

conjunction with rail-cleaning using a trisodium

phosphate (TSP) solution. In addition, a HEPAequipped vacuum (portable or central) should be

used to remove dust from floors, rather than dry

sweeping. 

7. The company that designed and installed the

range could be contacted to investigate ways to

minimize the filter clogging that has discouraged the

use of the central HEPA-filtered vacuum system. 

8. Countertops and other surfaces should be

cleaned with a TSP solution. In addition, spray

bottles of TSP could be used by recruits to remove

lead from gun-cleaning trays after cleaning weapons.

(Hands should be washed after cleaning guncleaning trays or other surfaces.)

REFERENCES
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218 Page 9

10. 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.

11. Valway SE, Martyny JW, Miller JR, et

al. [1989]. Lead absorption in indoor firing

range users. American Jour of Pub Health, 79:

1029-1032. 

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Grandjean P and Bach E [1986]. 

Indirect exposures: the significance of

bystanders at work and at home. Am Ind Hyg

Assoc J 47(12):819-824.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218

Table 1. Air Sampling. NH Police Standards & Training (HETA 96-0218), September 19 - 20, 1996

ID Location/operation Sample # Date, Time Period

(minutes)

Volume 

(Liters)

Pb1

(μg/m3)

Pb (μg/m3

)

8-hr TWA

Maintenance

cleaning rails 1 9/19, 1415-1502 47 118 140 13

weekly cleaning 2 9/19, 1503-1543 40 101 22 1.8

Group 1

 Recruit A booth # 8

6 9/20, 0837-0853 16 40 (2.0) (0.066)

14 9/20, 0912-0925

 0944-1000 29 73 1.6 0.099

 Recruit B booth # 14

7 9/20, 0837-0853 16 40 (1.2) (0.039)

15 9/20, 0912-0927

 0944-1000 31 78 1.2 0.077

 Recruit C booth # 7

8 9/20, 0837-0853 16 40 (1.9) (0.063)

16 9/20, 0912-0925

 0944-0959 28 71 (0.94) (0.055)

Group 2

 Recruit D --

11 9/20, 0854-0912 18 46 (1.5) (0.058)

17

9/20, 0927-0943

 1003-1020

 1025-1140

108 273 0.70 0.16

 Recruit E booth # 5

12 9/20, 0854-0912 18 45 2.5 0.092

18 9/20, 0927-0943

 1003-1020 33 82 3.0 0.21

 Recruit F booth # 14

13 9/20, 0854-0911 17 42 (1.8) (0.062)

19 9/20, 0927-0943

 1003-1021 34 84 9.5 0.67

Instructor firing range 10 9/20, 0837-1140 183 459 0.28 0.11

Area control room 9 9/20, 0838-1145 187 469 < 0.06 < 0.02

Area indoor track 20 9/20, 1008-1150 102 257 < 0.1 < 0.02

1. Average lead concentration during sample period. 

μg/m3 = Micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air.

< = Less than. Analytical results preceded by “<” are reported in terms of the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)

presented in the table. The MDC is the minimum concentration that can be detected, based upon sample volume and

analytical sensitivity.

( ) = Value is between the MDC and minimum quantifiable concentration (MQC). 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0218 Page 11

 Table 2. Wipe Samples, NH Police Standards & Training, September 19-20, 1996

Sample Location Lead†

(μg/100 cm2)

W-1 door, exit from range 13.

W-2 center of lateral target system controls 15.

W-3 countertop, outside firearms facility 5.8

W-4 barricade, firing booth # 8 240.

W-5 gun cleaning tray in classroom 1100.

W-6 kitchenette countertop in conference

room 2.5

W-9 sole of Tygon shoe cover 260.

† micrograms of lead per 100 square centimeters of surface area (approximately 4

inches by 4 inches).

Table 3. Bulk Sample, NH Police Standards & Training, September 19, 1996

Sample Location Lead†

(μg/g)

K-1 firing range (floor sweepings) 45000.

† micrograms of lead per gram of sample (parts per million).