NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 

HETA #2005-0153-2997 

Broward County Parks and Recreation Division, 

Markham Park 

Sunrise, Florida 

April 2006 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ii 

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch (HETAB) of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (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 (OSHA) 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 employers 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. 

HETAB 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 NIOSH. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Judith Eisenberg and Bradley King of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, 

Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Perianan 

Periakaruppan. Analytical support was provided by Pacific Toxicology Laboratory and DataChem 

Laboratories, Inc. Desktop publishing was performed by Elaine Moore. Editorial assistance was provided 

by Ellen Galloway. 

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at Markham Park and 

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

be viewed and printed from the following internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe. Copies may be 

purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161. 

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 

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Evaluation of Arsenic and Lead Exposures at a County Park

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a union request for a 

 health hazard evaluation (HHE) at Markham Park in Sunrise, Florida. The request cited union concerns 

about employees’ potential exposure to arsenic and lead while tending the park grounds and in 

outdoor firing ranges. NIOSH investigators conducted an evaluation in July 2005.

What NIOSH Did

 We checked park grounds for potential arsenic 

and lead exposures. 

 We looked at range hygiene and work practices. 

 We looked at chemical storage practices. 

 We evaluated employee training programs. 

 We interviewed grounds crew and range 

workers. 

 We took blood samples to test for lead and urine 

samples to test for arsenic. 

 We took surface wipe samples for lead. 

What NIOSH Found

 Accumulation of lead dust in areas of the firing 

range. 

 Dry sweeping the firing range may increase 

employees’ exposure to lead dust at the firing 

range. 

 There was no standard employee training for 

handling and applying pesticides. 

 No employee reported health effects consistent 

with either arsenic or lead poisoning. 

 No employee had high inorganic arsenic levels in 

their urine. 

 No employees had high blood lead levels. 

 

 Enforce range personal hygiene practices, such 

as handwashing after the work shift. 

 Improve storage, labeling, and disposal practices 

for chemicals used at the park. 

 Improve training programs for employees who 

handle pesticides and herbicides. 

 Evaluate heat stress and start a training program, 

if needed. 

 Evaluate noise exposures. If noise levels are 

high, train all grounds crew and range employees 

in the proper use of hearing protection and 

provide task-appropriate protective equipment. 

What Markham Park Employees Can Do

 Obtain blood lead levels for lead and nonprovoked urinary testing for arsenic if you are 

concerned about exposure. 

 Wash face and hands when leaving the range and 

before eating, drinking, or smoking. 

 Handle only chemicals for which you’ve had the 

appropriate training. 

 Follow manufacturer’s guidelines for personal 

protective equipment when handling chemicals. 

 Take breaks in shaded or air-conditioned areas as 

needed and drink more non-caffeinated and lowsugar beverages.

 Use hearing protection during noisy tasks. 

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 

1-513-841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report # 2005-0153-2997

What Markham Park Managers Can Do 
iv 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2005-0153-2997 

Broward County Parks and Recreation Division, 

Markham Park 

Sunrise, Florida 

April 2006 

Judith Eisenberg, MD 

Bradley King, MPH, CIH 

SUMMARY

On March 2, 2005, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a 

confidential union request for a health hazard evaluation at Markham Park in Sunrise, Florida. The 

request concerned potential exposure to lead, arsenic, pesticides, herbicides, and cleaning chemicals. 

Employees were concerned about lead exposure from the Park’s shooting range and from old painted 

signs. Arsenic exposure was a concern due to the reported use of an arsenic containing ant-killer and 

chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated lumber. Two employees had reportedly been diagnosed with 

heavy metal poisoning. 

On July 5-6, 2005, NIOSH investigators conducted surface wipe samples for lead in and around the 

shooting ranges, and from the hands of shooting range personnel. All workers were invited to participate 

in medical testing, which included an interview and collection of blood and urine specimens for lead and 

arsenic, respectively. 

Surface wipe sampling for lead on table and floor surfaces in the shooting range revealed lead levels 

ranging from 94.7 micrograms lead per 100 square centimeters (mcg/100 cm2

) to 519.7 mcg 

lead/100 cm2

. Lead levels on table and floor surfaces in the firing range clubhouse were approximately 10 

times lower (range: 9.3 mcg/100 cm2

 to 55.7 mcg lead/100 cm2). Surface lead levels in the recreation 

areas of the clubhouse were the lowest (5.3 mcg lead/100 cm2

 on the picnic table in the clubhouse 

covered patio area and 1.7 mcg lead/100 cm2

 on the floor of the clubhouse conference room). Lead levels 

on the hands of two range attendants ranged from 27.7 to 88.7 mcg lead. No federal standards for lead 

contamination of surfaces in occupational settings exist. 

Of 19 employees, 11 volunteered for medical evaluation (interview and specimen collection) while four 

other employees provided interviews only. None had elevated urinary inorganic arsenic levels. Four of the 

range employees had minimally elevated blood lead levels and all others were nondetectable. None of the 

interviewed employees described adverse health effects they considered work related aside from possible 

heat stress and hearing loss. 
v 

At the time of this site visit, arsenic did not present a health hazard. There was evidence 

of minimal exposures to lead for the firing range staff but not for the groundskeeping 

staff. The presence of lead on the hands of range attendants highlights the importance of 

proper personal hygiene practices, as hand-to-mouth ingestion of lead dust could be the 

cause of the low levels of lead detected in the blood of some of the range staff. 

Recommendations are made regarding employee training, proper handling of chromated 

copper arsenate (CCA) treated lumber, proper range housekeeping, proper storage and 

handling of onsite chemicals, and further evaluation of heat stress and noise exposures. 

Keywords: NAICS 712190 (Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions) lead, arsenic, firing range, 

pesticides, herbicides, cleaning chemicals, CCA lumber 
Table of Contents 

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

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

Highlights of the Health Hazard Evaluation ...........................................................................................iii 

Summary.....................................................................................................................................................iv

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

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

Workplace Description...........................................................................................................................1

Methods........................................................................................................................................................1

Industrial Hygiene ..................................................................................................................................1

Medical.....................................................................................................................................................2

Urinary Arsenic Levels.......................................................................................................................2

Blood Lead Levels ...............................................................................................................................2

Review of Records...............................................................................................................................3

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

Arsenic .....................................................................................................................................................3

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

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

Industrial Hygiene ..................................................................................................................................5

Medical.....................................................................................................................................................6

Review of Records...............................................................................................................................6

Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................6

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................8

References....................................................................................................................................................8
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 Page 1 

INTRODUCTION

In March 2005, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

received a confidential union request for a 

Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the Broward 

County Parks and Recreation Division, 

Markham Park in Sunrise, Florida. The request 

noted concerns by maintenance staff at the park 

regarding exposures to a variety of substances 

including lead, arsenic, pesticides, herbicides 

and cleaning chemicals. The potential arsenic 

sources were decaying pressure treated lumber 

that had been removed from public use but had 

not been removed from the park grounds, and an 

ant killer that purportedly contained arsenic. The 

potential lead sources were lead dust generated 

on the firing ranges and lead-containing paint 

used on older park signs. The request was 

prompted by two employees who had reportedly 

been diagnosed with “heavy metal poisoning.” 

Review of their medical records found that these 

diagnoses were made via nonstandard testing 

methodologies. 

On July 5-6, 2005, NIOSH medical and 

industrial hygiene investigators conducted a site 

visit. An opening conference was held with 

management and employee representatives to 

discuss the HHE request. Following the 

conference, the industrial hygienists participated 

in a thorough walk-through survey of the site, 

accompanied by management and union 

representatives as well as two employees who 

wanted to direct them to certain areas in the 

park. While the industrial hygienists participated 

in the walk-through survey, the medical 

personnel interviewed employees and collected 

biological specimens for urinary arsenic and 

blood lead. These interviews spanned the 2 days 

of the site visit. All current employees in the 

targeted job descriptions (Range Attendants, 

Range Officers, Groundskeepers, Park Aides I 

and II, Equipment Operators I and II, 

Maintenance Workers I and II and a Grounds 

Maintenance Supervisor) were invited to 

participate. On the second day, the industrial 

hygienists collected surface lead wipe samples 

in and around the shooting ranges. On August 

26, 2005, workers who participated in the study 

were sent individual notification letters 

informing them of their urinary arsenic levels 

and blood lead levels. 

BACKGROUND

Workplace Description 

Markham Park, a 666-acre park located in 

Sunrise, Florida, is part of the Broward County 

Parks and Recreation Division. The park has 

interlocking fishing lakes, a model airplane 

field, a swimming pool complex, a 3-acre dog 

park, and trails for jogging, hiking, biking, and 

horseback riding. Two outdoor firing range 

complexes were built in 1984–one target range 

for rifles and pistols and a separate clay skeet 

shooting range. The rifle and pistol ranges are 

divided into 50-yard and 100-yard target alleys. 

The skeet and trap areas include a mile-long 

automated clay course. There are five 

combination skeet and trap fields and a five 

stand sporting clay course. Markham Park 

currently employs 19 Groundskeepers and 

maintenance staff along with a separate 

contingent of Range Officers and range 

maintenance crews. 

Markham Park grounds crew employees are 

divided into Park Aide I and II, Equipment 

Operator I and II, Grounds Maintenance 

Supervisor, Groundskeeper and Maintenance 

Worker I and II. Shooting ranges employees 

include Range Aide, Range Attendant, and 

Range Safety Officer. 

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene 

Herbicides, Pesticides and Cleaning 

Chemicals

Along with management and employee 

representatives, NIOSH investigators toured the 

park grounds. During the tour, employees 

identified several areas of concern and potential 

health hazards. One was the storage shed within 

the maintenance compound. The chemical 

storage was described as a concern to employees 

due to the presence of old chemicals, the high 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 

environmental temperatures inside the storage 

shed, and the occasional “overpowering” odors. 

Discussions were held with employees both 

informally and during confidential interviews 

regarding the use and storage of the chemicals, 

and in particular, the training employees 

received and the personal protective equipment 

(PPE) commonly used. Material Safety Data 

Sheets (MSDSs) were reviewed for the 

pesticides and herbicides used on park grounds. 

Arsenic and Lead

During the walk-through survey of the park, 

benches, tables, and logs reportedly made from 

chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated 

lumber were identified. Some were located in 

public areas of the park, while other items were 

in areas inaccessible to the public such as the 

maintenance compound area. Work practices 

and use of PPE were also discussed with 

employees. 

After a walk-through of the park’s outdoor 

shooting range, 11 surface wipe samples were 

collected to determine the extent of surface 

contamination with lead and other elements at 

various locations in the range and adjacent 

clubhouse. Surface sampling locations included 

floor and table surfaces at various lanes of the 

shooting range, and floor and table surfaces in 

office, recreation, and eating spaces in the 

clubhouse. The samples were collected with premoistened Wash n’ Dry® towelettes according 

to the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 

(NMAM) Method 9100. The procedure was as 

follows: 1) identify the area to be sampled; 2) 

put on pair of latex disposable gloves; 3) wipe 

the surface within a disposable 10 centimeter 

(cm) by 10 cm template using three to four 

horizontal S-strokes, side to side so that entire 

surface is covered; 4) fold the exposed side of 

the wipe in and wipe the same area with three to 

four vertical S-strokes; 5) fold the wipe once 

more and wipe the area with three to four 

horizontal S-strokes; 6) fold the pad, exposed 

side in and place in a container. A new template 

was used for each sample. The wipe samples 

were digested and analyzed for elements, 

including lead and arsenic, according to NMAM 

Method 7300. 

Hand-wipe samples were taken from two Range 

Attendants to assess lead contamination on skin. 

At the end of their shifts, the employees were 

instructed to wipe their hands (including 

between the fingers) for approximately 30 

seconds using pre-moistened Wash n’ Dry® 

towelettes, which were then placed into a sterile 

plastic container. The samples were digested and 

analyzed for elements, including lead, according 

to NMAM Method 7300. 

Medical 

The medical officer interviewed 15 employees. 

These interviews covered occupational and 

medical history, and employees were 

encouraged to discuss any health issues they 

believed were work related. Based on job title, 

description of duties, and duration of 

employment at the park, we identified 11 of the 

15 interviewed employees as having an 

increased risk for lead and arsenic exposures. 

These employees were asked to participate in 

biological sampling for those two heavy metals. 

All questions regarding participation were 

answered prior to obtaining informed consent to 

participate in biological sampling, which 

consisted of urinary arsenic and blood lead 

measurements. Medical records of the two 

employees who reported being diagnosed with 

heavy metal poisoning were reviewed. 

Urinary Arsenic Levels 

Urine samples were collected in acid-washed 

specimen cups. All urine samples were speciated 

to separate the organic and inorganic arsenic 

components. Organic arsenic is commonly 

found in the body due to its presence in dietary 

sources such as seafood and is not associated 

with adverse health effects. Arsenic poisoning is 

due to inorganic arsenic entering the body; for 

this reason it is helpful to perform the speciation. 

Total urinary arsenic results were reported as 

micrograms of inorganic arsenic per gram of 

creatinine (mcg/g/cr) while the inorganic 

component was reported as micrograms per liter 

(mcg/L). 

Blood Lead Levels 

Venous blood was collected into navy blue top 

test tubes provided by the NIOSH contract 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 Page 3 

laboratory for blood lead level analysis. Blood 

lead levels were reported as micrograms per 

deciliter (mcg/dL). 

Review of Records 

Medical records from two men who previously 

worked at Markham Park accompanied the HHE 

request. One was a former Parks employee and 

the other was currently employed at another 

Broward County Park. A NIOSH medical officer 

reviewed the OSHA 300 logs of illness and 

injury for the past 5 years. 

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 increases 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 (TLVs®),2

 and (3) the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible 

Exposure Limits (PELs).3

 Employers are 

encouraged to follow the OSHA limits, the 

NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or whichever 

are the more protective criteria. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish 

employees a place of employment that is free 

from recognized hazards that are causing or are 

likely to cause death or serious physical harm 

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1)]. Thus, 

employers should understand that not all 

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA 

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term 

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still 

required by OSHA to protect their employees 

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific 

OSHA PEL. 

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 

STEL or ceiling values which are intended to 

supplement the TWA where there are 

recognized toxic effects from higher exposures 

over the short-term. 

Arsenic 

Arsenic is an element found naturally in low 

levels in the environment. The inorganic form 

can cause adverse health effects when too much 

is taken up in the body. Organic arsenic is not 

associated with adverse health effects. It is 

found in common dietary sources such as 

seafood. Speciation is the process by which a 

laboratory separates the total arsenic level into 

the inorganic and organic components. Inorganic 

arsenic has many industrial uses, and low levels 

of inorganic arsenic can occur naturally. 

Inorganic arsenic may be found as a contaminant 

in well water when wells are dug into soil 

containing inorganic arsenic. The concentration 

of inorganic arsenic in the urine of persons not 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 

exposed to arsenic in the workplace is variable.4

Background levels of urinary arsenic are less 

than 20-25 mcg/L.5

 The ACGIH recommends a 

biological exposure index (BEI) for arsenic (as 

inorganic arsenic) in urine of 35 mcg/L.2

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 via 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".6,7,8 Overexposure to lead 

may also result in kidney damage, 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.9

 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 years) declined 

significantly between 1976 and 1991, from 13.1 to 

3.0 micrograms per deciliter of blood (mcg/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 mcg/dL, and more 

than 98% have a BLL <15 mcg/dL.10 

Under the OSHA general industry lead standard 

(29 CFR 1910.1025), the PEL for airborne 

exposure to lead is 50 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mcg/m3

) for an 8-hour TWA.11 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 mcg/m3

 (8-hour TWA), medical removal of 

employees whose average BLL is 50 mcg/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 mcg/dL. NIOSH has an REL 

for lead of 50 mcg/m3

 averaged over a 8-hour work 

shift. ACGIH has a TLV for lead of 50 mcg/m3

 (8–

hour TWA), with worker BLLs to be controlled to 

or below 30 mcg/dL, and designation of lead as an 

animal carcinogen.2

The occupational exposure criteria 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 mcg/dL, and decreased fertility in men with 

BLLs as low as 40 mcg/dL. BLLs are associated 

with increased blood pressure, even at levels less 

than 10 mcg/dL. Fetal exposure to lead is 

associated with reduced gestational age and low 

birth weight with maternal BLLs as low as 10 to 

15 mcg/dL. BLLs at 10 mcg/dL have been 

associated with decreased intelligence and impaired 

neurobehavioral development.12 Men and women 

planning to have 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 concentrations of 

lead in the house dust have been found in the 

homes of workers employed in industries 

associated with high lead exposure.13 Particular 

effort should be made to ensure that children of 

persons who work in areas of high lead exposure 

receive a BLL test. The current CDC screening 

guidelines for children use 10 mcg/dL as a “level of 

concern” in order to intervene and prevent longterm cognitive deficits. 14

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-tomouth contact with contaminated clothing, 

cigarettes, or food. Previous studies have found a 

significant correlation between resident children’s 

BLLs and house dust lead levels.15 In the 

workplace, generally there is little or no correlation 

between surface lead levels and employee 

exposures because ingestion exposures are highly 

dependent on personal hygiene practices and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 Page 5 

available facilities for maintaining personal 

hygiene. No current federal standard provides a 

permissible limit for lead contamination of surfaces 

in occupational settings. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) currently recommends 

meeting the following clearance levels for surface 

lead loading after residential lead abatement or 

interim control activities: floors, 40 micrograms per 

square foot (mcg/ft2

); interior window sills, 

250 mcg/ft2

; window troughs, 400 mcg/ft2.

16 These 

levels have been established as achievable through 

lead abatement and interim control activities. They 

are not based on projected health effects associated 

with specific surface dust levels. 

RESULTS

Industrial Hygiene 

Herbicides, Pesticides and Cleaning 

Chemicals

Chemicals for which MSDSs were reviewed 

included: 

• chlorpyrifos (DursbanTM) - an 

organophosphate insecticide 

• oryzalin or 3,5,-Dinitro-N4,N4-

dipropylsulfanilamide (SurflanTM) – an 

herbicide 

• bifenthrin (Talstar®) – an insecticide 

combination of pyrethrins with 

piperonyl butoxide 

• triclopyr or 3,5,6-trichloro-2-

pyridoloxyacetic acid (GarlonTM) – an 

herbicide 

• abamectin (VarsityTM Fire Ant Bait) – 

an insecticide 

Many of the MSDSs state that for brief contact, 

no precautions other than clean body-covering 

clothing should be needed, but that impermeable 

gloves are recommended for prolonged or 

frequent contact. At least one, Talstar®, 

recommends wearing rubber, neoprene, or 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) gloves during use and 

to thoroughly wash the outside of gloves with 

soap and water prior to removal. 

The park management’s hazard communication, 

training, and PPE programs include safety 

classes and individual training for maintenance 

and grounds-keeping personnel involved in 

mixing and applying pesticides, as well as 

training in the proper selection and use of 

gloves. The park requires the use of nitrile 

rubber gloves, long sleeves, shoes, socks, and 

safety glasses for pesticide application. 

However, during confidential interviews, 

employees reported inconsistent use of PPE. 

A consistent complaint among workers was the 

heavy chemical odor said to be present in the 

chemical storage shed. No discernable odor was 

noticed at the shed on the day of the site visit. 

Although no indoor temperature readings were 

taken, the interior temperature felt hot to the 

NIOSH team as would be expected on a typical 

Florida summer day. The interior temperature of 

the shed raised a concern with employees 

because many of the manufacturers of the stored 

chemicals specifically recommend storage in a 

cool, dry location. Inspection of the storage shed 

revealed a variety of pesticides, herbicides, 

paints, and other stored chemicals, both those 

identified for current use and those that were no 

longer used. Additionally, there were several 

unmarked barrels outside the storage shed. 

Arsenic and Lead

During discussions of work practices with 

employees, many reported cutting, drilling, 

building, and moving tables of CCA-treated 

lumber. Typically, the work was performed 

without respiratory protection or gloves. The 

level of potential exposure to arsenic compounds 

during these activities is unknown. The EPA 

does stress that it “has not concluded that CCAtreated wood poses any unreasonable risk to the 

public or the environment. Nevertheless, arsenic 

is a known human carcinogen and, thus, the 

Agency believes that any reduction in the levels 

of potential exposure to arsenic is desirable”.17 

Surface wipe sampling in and around the 

shooting ranges confirmed the presence of lead 

as shown in Table 1. Table and floor surfaces of 

the outdoor range had the highest levels, 

ranging from 94.7 micrograms lead per 100 

square centimeters (mcg/100 cm2

) to 

519.7 mcg lead/100 cm2

. Lead levels on table 

and floor surfaces in the firing range clubhouse 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 

offices were approximately 10 times lower 

(9.3 mcg/100 cm2

 to 55.7 mcg lead/100 cm2). 

Levels of lead in recreation areas of the 

clubhouse were the lowest, ranging from 

1.7 mcg lead/100 cm2

 to 5.3 mcg lead/100 cm2. 

Lead levels on the hands of two Range 

Attendants ranged from 27.7 to 88.7 mcg lead. 

Medical 

Interviews conducted with 15 park employees 

covered employment history, medical history, 

description of current job duties, potential job 

related health concerns, and overall impression 

of worker safety at the park. Length of 

employment of interviewed employees ranged 

from 18 months to over 30 years. Nine of the 

eleven employees who participated in testing 

had employment durations of over 10 years. 

Three stated they remembered having blood lead 

levels done in the past by the park but stated 

they were not informed of the results. The workrelated health concerns voiced during these 

interviews included: heat stress, hearing loss, 

mold exposure in one of the older restrooms, and 

a strong “chemical odor” inside the storage shed. 

Most employees stated that they felt Markham 

Park was a safe place to work. During these 

confidential employee interviews, work 

practices were discussed, including the use of 

PPE, such as gloves and masks, when working 

with the chemicals. Reported glove use ranged 

from never to always using gloves when 

handling cleaning chemicals, pesticides or 

herbicides. 

Eleven employees participated in biological 

sampling. Six of these were Groundskeepers 

while the other five were range employees. The 

contract laboratory reference range for inorganic 

arsenic was less than 20 mcg/L. None of the 

participants had inorganic arsenic levels above 

the reference range. Ten of the eleven 

employees had nondetectable levels and one 

employee had an inorganic arsenic level of 

12 mcg/L. Seven of the eleven participating 

employees (64%) had no detectable lead in their 

blood. The remaining four (two range attendants 

and two range officers) were below 10 mcg/dL. 

Review of Records 

Review of the OSHA 300 logs revealed 

primarily musculoskeletal injuries. There were 

no reports of specific chemical exposures. 

Of the two men whose medical records were 

reviewed, one was not eligible to participate in 

our evaluation since he was no longer a current 

employee of the Broward County Parks and 

Recreation Department. The second employee 

who was eligible did not participate in the 

medical testing conducted as part of this HHE. 

Both men were diagnosed with heavy metal 

poisoning by nonstandard testing modalities 

such as hair testing and provoked urine testing. 

Neither of these employees had ever had a blood 

lead level performed, which is the gold standard 

for diagnosing lead poisoning or a non-provoked 

urine test for arsenic, which is the standard 

method for assessing body burden of arsenic. 

DISCUSSION AND 

CONCLUSIONS

The potential sources of arsenic suggested by the 

HHE requestors were decaying pressure-treated 

lumber that had been removed from public use 

but had not been removed from the park grounds 

and an ant killer that purportedly contained 

arsenic. MSDSs obtained for the insecticides and 

herbicides currently in use at the park did not 

reveal any that contained arsenic. Discarded 

pressure-treated lumber was observed on park 

grounds but employees reported minimal contact 

with this material. Finally, biological testing did 

not reveal any cases of inorganic arsenic 

poisoning. However, the potential for future 

exposure during work conducted by park 

employees on CCA-treated lumber present on 

the park grounds can still be minimized. The 

EPA has the following handling precautions for 

inorganic arsenical pressure-treated wood:18

• Avoid frequent or prolonged inhalation 

of sawdust from treated wood. When 

sawing, sanding, and machining treated 

wood, wear a dust mask. Whenever 

possible, these operations should be 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 Page 7 

performed outdoors to avoid indoor 

accumulations or airborne sawdust from 

treated wood. 

• When power-sawing and machining, 

wear goggles to protect eyes from flying 

particles. 

• Wear gloves when working with the 

wood. After working with the wood, and 

before eating, drinking, toileting, and 

use of tobacco products, wash exposed 

areas thoroughly. 

Although the use of leaded paint could not be 

excluded by the employees, test results for the 

grounds crew revealed non-detectable blood lead 

levels. Blood lead was detected only in 

employees who worked in the shooting ranges, 

but these levels were all below intervention 

levels for adults. This would indicate that the 

primary source of lead exposure at the park is 

lead dust generated by the use of leaded 

ammunition. Lead dust was found on surfaces in 

and around the shooting range. The levels found 

on surfaces around the firing line were higher 

than in the offices and recreation areas of the 

clubhouse. The presence of lead on two Range 

Attendants’ hands revealed the importance of 

personal hygiene practices, particularly 

thoroughly cleaning hands using soap and water 

after each work shift. Observation of work 

practices revealed ways to reduce aerosolized 

lead dust exposure to employees. One of these 

practices observed was the dry sweeping of the 

floor at the firing line with a broom. This 

practice can increase potential inhalation of lead 

dust. Wet methods or high-efficiency particulate 

air (HEPA) filtered vacuuming are preferred 

work practices to dry sweeping. The blood lead 

levels found in Markham Park’s range 

employees indicate a need to reduce exposures 

to lead dust by improving work practices. 

The two employees on whose behalf the union 

submitted this HHE request were diagnosed with 

heavy metal poisoning solely based on 

nonstandard testing modalities, i.e., hair testing. 

In a 2001 statement, the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

stated that hair testing is an unacceptable 

modality for diagnosing heavy poisoning, as too 

little is known about hair deposition 

toxicokinetics or how these levels correlate to 

clinical presentations. At best, hair testing may 

be an indicator of past exposure to metals. 

Toxicologists consider blood lead levels (BLL) 

the gold standard for diagnosing lead poisoning 

and monitoring its treatment. BLL are ideal, as 

they directly measure metal within the body. 

Arsenic levels, on the other hand, can be tested 

using blood or urine. Testing for arsenic using 

urinary spot levels (as opposed to collecting and 

testing a 24-hour urinary specimen) is an 

acceptable method of testing. Provoked urinary 

testing (in which a chelating agent is given prior 

to collection urine and measuring it for metals) 

is not recommended. Provoked urinary testing 

has resulted in many patients being falsely 

diagnosed with arsenic poisoning because the 

test measured the arsenic content of the diet. A 

false positive diagnosis of heavy metal 

poisoning can have serious results if these 

patients are then treated with chelators. 

Chelators have the potential for life-threatening 

adverse health effects. 

Although there is evidence that range employees 

have minimal lead exposures, there is no 

evidence either by biological testing or via 

employee histories that there have been cases of 

either lead or arsenic poisoning at Markham 

Park. 

Management should focus its attention on the 

storage and use of herbicides, pesticides and 

cleaning chemicals. During discussions with 

employees, it appeared that the training they 

received did not ensure correct work practices 

associated with handling such chemicals. The 

presence of old chemicals and non-labeled, 

chemical-containing barrels, indicates the need 

for improved inventory and disposal practices at 

the park. 

Although not evaluated as part of this HHE, heat 

stress and noise may be potential health hazards. 

These issues were repeatedly brought up during 

discussions with employees. The potential for 

heat stress arises from the extensive amount of 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 

labor conducted outdoors in the heat of the 

summer months. Ensuring proper hydration, 

work-rest cycles, and acclimatization are 

important components of a heat stress program 

that can help prevent potential heat-related 

injuries. Noise exposures can occur during the 

use of equipment such as saws and mowers. A 

noise evaluation by park management can best 

determine the noise levels as well as the proper 

hearing protection that would be required should 

these levels exceed current occupational 

exposure limits. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Lead 

• Stop dry sweeping of shell casings. Use 

wet cleaning or HEPA vacuuming 

methods for this task. 

• Wash hands prior to eating and at the 

end of the shift. 

• Prohibit eating, drinking, or smoking on 

the range. 

Arsenic 

• Remove discarded pressure treated 

lumber from park grounds. 

• Perform work on the CCA-treated 

lumber still present on park grounds 

according to EPA handling precautions. 

Chemical Handling and Storage 

• Ensure that all workers are 

knowledgeable about the chemicals with 

which they are working and about any 

PPE required by park management; 

ensure that the use of such PPE is 

consistent among the employees. 

• Ensure that all chemicals on the park 

property are properly inventoried, 

labeled, stored in a cool, dry location, 

and disposed of according to 

manufacturers’ recommendations. 

Heat stress 

• Evaluate worker exposure to heat stress 

to determine if preventive actions are 

needed, such as a training program for 

employees regarding the signs and 

symptoms of heat stress. 

• Encourage frequent breaks in shaded or 

air-conditioned areas. 

• Increase availability of water fountains 

and encourage increased fluid intake. 

Noise 

• Evaluate noise exposures to determine if 

it is necessary to institute a hearing 

conservation program and to supply 

task-appropriate hearing protection. 

REFERENCES

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 and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 92-100. 

2. ACGIH [2005]. 2005 TLVs® and BEIs®: 

threshold limit values for chemical substances 

and physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists. 

3. CFR [2003]. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

4. Lauwerys RR and Hoet P [2001]. Industrial 

Chemical Exposure: guidelines for biological 

monitoring. Third Edition. CRC Press LLC, 

Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 202-218 

5. Smith TJ, Crecelius EA, and Reading JC 

[1977]. Airborne arsenic exposure and excretion 

of methylated arsenic compounds. Env Health 

Persp 19: 89-93. 

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

compounds. In: Occupational medicine. 2nd ed. 

Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 Page 9 

7. 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. 

8. Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML 

[1996]. Lead. In: Chemical hazards of the 

workplace. 4th ed. New York, NY: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 371–375. 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

11. Code of Federal Regulations [2000]. OSHA 

lead standard. 29 CFR, Part 1910.1025. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Federal Register. 

12. 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. 

13. 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. 

14. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young 

Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control. Publication date: 10/01/1991 

15. 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. 

16. Code of Federal Regulations [2001]. EPA 

Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead. 40 

CFR, Part 745. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Federal Register. 

17. US Environmental Protection Agency 

[2005]. Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA): 

Health and Safety Information. 

[http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cc

a/health_safety.htm] Date accessed: November 

2005. 

18. US Environmental Protection Agency 

[2005]. Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA): 

Consumer Safety Information Sheet: Inorganic 

Arsenical Pressure-Treated Wood. 

[http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cc

a/cca_consumer_safety.htm] Date accessed: 

November 2005. 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2005-0153-2997 

Table 1. Surface wipe sampling for elements* 

Broward County Parks and Recreation Division, Markham Park Shooting Range 

July 6, 2005 

Sample Location Al 

(mcg) 

Ar 

(mcg) 

Ca 

(mcg) 

Cu 

(mcg) 

Fe 

(mcg) 

Pb 

(mcg) 

Ph 

(mcg) 

Ti 

(mcg) 

Zr 

(mcg) 

1 Table in range 

master’s office of 

the 100-yard range 

ND ND 37 0.7 ND 2.1 ND ND 0.5 

2 Front table of lane 

54 of the 100-yard 

range 

88 ND 140 12.7 29 95 1.7 2.6 1.2 

3 Rear table of lane 

44 of 100-yard 

range 

28 ND 130 14.7 971 110 0.7 5.6 0.9 

4 Broom handle at 

lane 59 of 100-yard 

range 

61 ND 37 8.2 23 20 3.7 0.7 1.4 

5 Floor of lane 43 of 

100-yard range 

248 ND 2340 120 431 520 69 15 1.2 

6 Chair surface at 

lane 39 of 100-yard 

range 

81 ND 47 3.4 32 23 ND 3.4 0.6 

7 Table surface in 

office of 100-yard 

range 

55 ND 37 2.7 ND 9.3 1.7 0.9 1.8 

8 Floor of office of 

100-yard range 

88 ND 607 10.7 55 56 11 1.3 0.9 

9 Floor of clubhouse 

conference room 

26 ND 270 0.8 ND 1.7 3.7 ND 1.0 

10 Table surface in 

clubhouse 

63 ND 37 0.4 ND 0.5 0.7 ND 0.7 

11 Picnic table surface 

in clubhouse 

covered patio area 

14 ND 130 1.7 ND 5.3 4.7 26 0.9 

12 Hand wipe from 

range attendant 

after raking and 

picking up spent 

shells 

118 ND 820 56 151 89 17 3.4 1.1 

13 Hand wipe from 

range attendant 

supervising and 

loading skeet trap 

328 ND 2040 18 311 28 37 2.6 0.5 

* Surface area sampled = 100 cm2 

† There are no standards for acceptable levels of various elements on surfaces in an occupational setting against 

which to compare these results. The following metals were below detection limits: beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, 

chromium, lithium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, platinum, selenium, silver, sodium, tellurium, 

thallium, vanadium, yttrium, and zinc. 

‡ Al = Aluminum; Ar = Arsenic; Ca = Calcium; Cu = Copper; Fe = Iron; Pb = Lead; Ph = Phosporus; Ti = 

Titanium; Zr = Zirconium 

ND = Not detectable
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for private use $300 

Delivering on the Nation's promise: 

Safety and Health at work for all people 

through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or information 

about occupational safety and health topics 

contact NIOSH at: 

1-800-35-NIOSH (356-4674) 

Fax: 1-513-533-8573 

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov 

or visit the NIOSH web site at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh 

S A F E R • H E A L T H I E R • P E O P L ETM