HETA 96-0107-2613

Dartmouth Police Department

Dartmouth, Massachusetts

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). Desktop

publishing by Pat Lovell.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at DPD 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 96-0107-2613

Dartmouth Police Department

Dartmouth, Massachusetts

December 1996

David C. Sylvain, M.S., CIH

SUMMARY

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

Evaluation (HHE) request from the Dartmouth Chief of Police to evaluate lead exposure during firearms

training. Although no adverse health effects had been reported, some of the officers were concerned about

potential lead exposure in the indoor range. 

Police from Dartmouth, New Bedford, and nearby towns, conduct firearms training at an outdoor range that

is owned and operated by the New Bedford Police Department. Within the past year, an indoor facility was

added to the range for providing instruction in night firing and fire/no-fire decision making. The facility is

located in an old, unrenovated office trailer which was moved onto the site. Inside the trailer, audiovisual

equipment is used to project a variety of scenarios that could be encountered by police officers. During

training, officers fire at the video images, and the bullets pass through the end of the trailer and into a dirt

berm.

A site visit was conducted on June 24, 1996, which included air sampling for lead during an in-service firearms

training session. A walk-through inspection of the facility was also conducted at this time. 

The results of air sampling conducted on this date indicate that airborne lead concentrations were below the

minimum quantifiable concentration (MQC). The average MQC for personal samples collected on officers was

43 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air (μg/m3

) based upon an average sample volume of 27.6 liters (range

30 - 84 μg/m3

). The MQC for the sample collected on the instructor during the training session was 4.4 μg/m 3.

The MQC for an area sample was 4.1 μg/m3

. Wipe samples from surfaces inside the trailer revealed lead

concentrations ranging from 6.6 to 31.6 μg/100 cm2

. Use of lead-containing ammunition is the likely source of the

surface contamination. 

Ventilation inside the trailer was provided by two 14-inch axial fans located in the sidewalls of the trailer,

approximately 60 inches from the floor at either side of the target area. Makeup air enters through a doorway at

the back of the room. The airflow was neither well-distributed, nor adequate to ensure the removal of airborne lead

that is generated by the firing of lead-primer ammunition.
iv

The firing of copper-jacketed lead-free primer ammunition in the trailer did not present a health hazard

to officers-in-training or the range instructor. However, continued use of lead-primer ammunition by other

police departments may expose those officers to lead, and result in further surface contamination inside

the trailer. The two axial fans, which provide ventilation in the trailer, did not provide an adequate,

evenly-distributed airflow which would be needed to control lead exposure during the firing of lead-primer

ammunition. 

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

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

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0107

INTRODUCTION

In March 1996, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a

Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) request from the

Chief of Police in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, to

evaluate lead exposure during firearms training in an

indoor facility. Although no adverse health effects

had been reported, some of the officers were

concerned about potential lead exposure in the

indoor range.

A site visit was conducted on June 24, 1996, which

included air sampling for lead during an in-service

firearms training session. A walk-through

inspection of the facility was also conducted at this

time.

BACKGROUND

Police officers from Dartmouth, New Bedford, and

nearby towns, conduct firearms training at an

outdoor range that is owned and operated by the

New Bedford Police Department. Within the past

year, an indoor facility was added to the range for

providing instruction in night firing and fire/no-fire

decision making. The facility is located in an old,

unrenovated office trailer which was moved onto the

site. Inside the trailer, audiovisual equipment is used

to project a variety of scenarios that could be

encountered by the officers. During training, officers

fire at the video images, and the bullets pass through

the end of the trailer and into a dirt berm.

The interior dimensions of the trailer are 41' x 9.33'

x 7' (ceiling height). An unused lavatory area

divides the trailer into two rooms. The larger room,

where firing occurs is 27' in length. Ventilation is

provided by two 14-inch axial fans located in the

sidewalls of the trailer, approximately 60 inches

from the floor at either side of the target area.

Makeup air enters through a doorway at the back of

the room. 

During in-service training conducted by the

Dartmouth Police Department earlier this year, three

officers entered the trailer along with a range officer

(instructor). Each officer fired approximately

18 rounds using a .40 caliber Glock handgun during

an estimated one to ten minute period. The range

officer remained in the trailer throughout a

subsequent session where approximately 70 officers

received training. Other phases of firearms training

were conducted outdoors. 

During the initial training session conducted in the

trailer, Dartmouth officers fired ammunition which

utilized a lead-containing cartridge primer

(“conventional” ammunition); however, copperjacketed, lead-free primer ammunition was used

during the second in-service session. The types of

weapons, and training format used by other police

departments is not known; however, it was reported

that these departments use conventional ammunition

inside the trailer. 

METHODS

On June 24, 1996, personal breathing zone (PBZ) air

samples were collected on ten officers and the range

instructor during firearms training inside the trailer

located at New Bedford Police Department’s

Woodcock Road range. On this date, each officer

entered the trailer individually, and fired 12 rounds

at video images that were projected onto the end of

the trailer. The range officer remained in the trailer

while each officer-in-training fired. When finished,

the officer (trainee) left the trailer, and the next

officer entered the trailer to fire 12 rounds. The

officers were firing .40 caliber Glock handguns

loaded with copper-jacketed, nonleaded primer

ammunition. 

In addition to PBZ samples, an area air sample was

collected above the bench at the rear of the firing

area throughout the entire training period. Upon

completing the training session, the area sample was

removed from the trailer, and the instructor fired

12 rounds of conventional .40 caliber ammunition. 

Each sample was collected using a battery-powered
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0107 Page 3

sampling pump to draw air through a 37-millimeter

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

mixed cellulose esters membrane filter mounted in a

closed-face cassette. The pumps were operated at a

nominal flow rate of 2.9 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).

Wash ‘n DriTM wipes were used to collect five

surface wipe samples from locations throughout the

trailer for lead analysis according to 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 was used for each sample. Care

was taken to use the same technique and wiping

pressure for each sample to reduce variation in

collection efficiency. 

Ventilation inside the trailer was evaluated using a

Model 8360 VelociCalc® Plus Air Velocity Meter,

and ventilation smoke tubes.

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 become

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. 96-0107

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

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. 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 6 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 at

this firing range more than 3.6 hours per month were

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

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 3 hours per
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0107 Page 5

month, should have their BLL checked. 

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.12 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 indicate that airborne

lead concentrations were below the minimum

quantifiable concentration (MQC). The MQC is the

minimum concentration that can be measured, based

upon sample volume and analytical sensitivity. The

average MQC for personal samples collected on

officers-in-training was 43 μg/m3

 based upon an

average sample volume of 27.6 liters (range 30 -

84 μg/m3

). The MQC for the sample collected on

the instructor during the training session was

4.4 μg/m3

. The MQC for the area sample was

4.1 μg/m3

. 

The average sampling time for each officer was

9.6 minutes (range 5 - 14 minutes). The sampling

period for the instructor was 99 minutes. The area

sample was collected at the bench at the rear of the

firing area for 102 minutes. 

An 8-minute PBZ sample was collected while the

instructor fired 12 rounds of conventional .40 caliber

ammunition. This ammunition had a lead-containing

primer, as did the ammunition which was used

during prior training in the trailer. No lead was

quantified in this sample; however it should be noted

that, due to the minimal sampling time and

subsequent low sample volume, the MQC was

54 μg/m3

. 

The results of wipe sampling are presented in table 1.

Wipe samples revealed lead concentrations ranging

from 6.6 to 31.6 μg/100 cm2 (an area of

approximately 16 square inches).

When interior and exterior trailer doors were open,

air velocity at the firing line ranged from 16 feet per

minute (fpm) along the left wall, to 130 fpm along

the opposite wall where air enters through a pocket

door. Air velocity at the center of the trailer was

16 fpm. With the doors closed, as is the case when

officers are firing, the air velocity ranged from zero

to 50 fpm. Air velocity at the center of the trailer

when doors were closed was 35 fpm. Use of

ventilation smoke tubes to visualize airflow revealed

considerable turbulence within the trailer, especially

when the doors were closed. When doors were

closed, smoke near the ceiling flowed toward the

rear of the firing area where it accumulated in a

corner above the bench.

DISCUSSION

Air sampling indicates that the 8-hour TWA lead

exposures on the sampling date were below the

MQC and, therefore, were well-below the OSHA

PEL during the firing of copper-jacketed, lead-free

primer ammunition. When expressed as an 8-hour

TWA concentration, the MQC of 43 μg/m3

 during a

9.6-minute sampling period is equivalent to an

average concentration of 0.86 μg/m3

; the MQC of

4.4 μg/m3

 during the 99-minute sample collected on

the range officer is equivalent to 0.91 μg/m3

. (Since

sampling results indicated concentrations below the

MQC, the actual concentrations to which officers

were exposed were below these levels.) It should be

noted that these results do not represent the exposure

of officers when firing non-jacketed, lead-primer

ammunition inside the trailer. Use of lead-containing

ammunition can result in significant airborne lead

exposure in indoor firing ranges, especially in ranges

with poor ventilation.13

 

The two wall-mounted fans in the trailer do not

provide adequate ventilation for removing airborne

lead during the firing of conventional ammunition.

Ventilation in an indoor firing range, where

conventional ammunition is used, should provide a
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0107

smooth, evenly-distributed airflow of 75 fpm across

the firing line.14 The airflow in the trailer was

neither well-distributed, nor adequate to ensure the

removal of airborne lead during the firing of

conventional ammunition. However, as

demonstrated during this HHE, use of lead-free

primer ammunition eliminates the source of much of

the lead that would otherwise be released inside the

trailer. 

It is likely that surface lead contamination detected

during this site visit resulted from the firing of

conventional ammunition. The continued use of

conventional ammunition by other departments can

be expected to result in further contamination inside

the trailer. 

The axial fans were not provided with guards to

prevent accidental contact with the moving blades.

Guards should be installed which have openings no

greater than one-half inch in width. The use of

concentric rings with spacing between them not

exceeding one-half inch is acceptable provided that

sufficient radial spokes and firm mountings are used

to make the guard rigid enough to prevent it from

being pushed into the fan blade during normal use.

CONCLUSIONS

The firing of copper-jacketed lead-free primer

ammunition in the trailer did not present a health

hazard to the officers or the range instructor.

However, continued use of lead-primer ammunition

by other police departments may expose those

officers to lead. The two axial fans that provide

ventilation in the trailer, did not provide an adequate,

evenly-distributed airflow which would be needed to

control lead exposure during the firing of lead-primer

ammunition. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Only jacketed, lead-free primer ammunition

should be used in the trailer. The use of “lead-free”

ammunition greatly reduces the potential for

exposure to lead in the air and on surfaces, inside the

trailer. 

2. Users of the range should be instructed to wash

after shooting. Although “lead-free” ammunition

was used by the Dartmouth Police Department,

surfaces within the trailer are contaminated with lead

from the use of conventional ammunition by officers

from other agencies. Shoes worn inside the trailer

can become contaminated with lead, and should not

be worn home.

3. Surface dust should be cleaned using wetmethods or a vacuum cleaner equipped with a highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. Drysweeping of the floor and surfaces inside the trailer

should be prohibited.

4. Range masters or instructors should have their

BLL checked at least every six months. Individuals

who use or work in the trailer for more than 3 hours

per month, should have their BLL checked.

5. Guards should be installed on the fans to prevent

injury from accidental contact with moving fan

blades. Fan blade guards should have openings no

greater than one-half inch in width, and should be

sufficiently rigid to prevent the guards from being

pushed into the fan blades.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0107 Page 7

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, Center 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.

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. 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.

13. Crouch CG, et al. [1991]. Ventilation

control of lead in indoor firing ranges: inlet

configuration and fluctuating flow

configurations. AIHAJ 52(2):81-91. 

14. NIOSH [1976]. Lead exposure and

design considerations for indoor firing ranges. 

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

Human Services, Public Health Service, Center

for Disease Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health,

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-130.

REFERENCES
 Table 1. Wipe Samples, New Bedford Police Firing Range, June 24, 1996.

Sample Location Lead†

(μg/100 cm2)

W-1 Bench top at rear of firing area 31.6 

W-2 Floor where trainee stands 24.5

W-3 Top of VCR cabinet 6.6 

W-4 Seat of folding chair 12.2 

W-5 Floor, in front of bench 14.8 

† micrograms of lead per 100 square centimeters of surface area (An area

measuring approximately 4 inches by 4 inches).