|
|
|
|
ELIMINATING LEAD
IN INDOOR RANGES |
|
The significant source
of particulate lead in an indoor range is the ammunition used. There are
four ways lead is generated in the shooting range.
The first and worst, also because of particle size, is the primer
that starts the powder ignition. It contains the chemical lead styphnate and
other heavy metals that insure a proper and reliable
ignition. |
|
The
second, and second worst, because of particle size, is the lead burn of the
lead bullet tail of jacketed ammunition. The hot
propelling gases result in atomization of molecular lead possibly
the most dangerous because of great gas volumes if in haled because
of range eddy currents. The third is the lead particles spiting out of
revolvers and barrel friction on all firearms. It results
in varying size lead particles downrange of the firing line on the
floor. The lead will be picked up by shoes and tracked elsewhere, where they
may or may not be ingested. |
|
The
fourth method, and the one that generates up to 95% of the particulate lead,
is the lead bullet collision with the so commonly
used, “hard” 30° to 45° incline steel traps.
It is just not prudent any
longer to simply design hard steel bullet traps unless “tracer
ammunition” is going to be used for machine gun training.
Just by
changing the projectile to totally encapsulated copper jacketed projectiles,
it produces a 97% reduction in lead particulate
when compared to using solid lead bullets. The use then of
both lead-free primers and totally encapsulated projectiles results
in airborne lead being totally, eliminated at the
firing lines and breathing zone. |
|
Military and law enforcement are the high consumers of
ammunition and will still continue to utilizes
jacketed bullets with lead primers for some time to come. The many calibers
of ammunition used and trained with are, the 9mm,
.38, .357, .45 calibers, 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm.
12ga slugs and double ought buck. Ammunition comes from a variety of
manufacturers.
|
|
Although lead-primed, jacketed ammunition is the standard,
it won’t be long before reliable nonleaded primers
become the new standard, along with totally encapsulated lead
projectiles. Hard bullet traps are the major reason, as much as 95% of for
the unintended generation, of lead in dust and
waste streams in firing ranges. Most existing bullet traps terminate the
bullets energy with a metal to metal hard
collision generating heat, lead slatter and fragments and dust.
Softer termination schemes such as the 12° to 17° dry or wet funnel
type traps with decelerationchamber and/or swirl chamber or snails are much gentler and produce no dust.
|
|
There are three antiquated metal bullet traps most common and still in use
today; the escalatortype, the venetian blind type and a “pit and plate”
type. Each of these type backstops has advantages
and disadvantages, however the net results remain the same: hard impacting
lead projectiles on hard steel, causes extreme
fragmentation of the lead and production of lead dust.
Gene Fabian reported in 1996 that a full 20% of the lead bullet
weight shot downrange on hard steel backstops do
not end up as large enough lead pieces that can be recycled. A full 20% of
the lead turns to small fragments, powder and
molecular lead not captured in the trap. It ends up as
settled dust or in the bag house. Downrange contamination becomes the major
reason that hazardous conditions have resulted in
firing ranges. Unless, these steel bullet traps are frequently
maintained and HEPA vacuumed, lead dust accumulates to the point that
it becomes stirred each time the ventilation
system is used. It has been observed that human overexposure in such cases
can occur even in the absence of shooting.
|
|
The major improvement over the antiquated steel traps
discussed above are the soft traps of 30°and less angle plate dry or wet
funnel type bullet traps. The collision is a lot softer on projectilessince
bullets impact the plates at a 12 to 17 degrees or less incline and slide
into a swirl or deceleration chamber. Any dust
that is produced can purportedly be vacuumed by an exhaust fan
and directed to a filter chamber or washed into a water oil
mixture.Two problems can occur with the dry-funnel design. The first is, the
shooting range is designed as a negative pressure
room that can easily overcome the bullet traps aspiration fan capacity and
may result in lead dust settling in the range room anyway.
|
The second problem that occurs is that over the life of the trap,
lead smearing will occur even with jacketed and hollow
point ammunition. When the range is finally closed, all the steel will
have to be disposed of as hazardous waste or cleaned
Because of the concern for lead dust generation at steel bullet traps,
the bullet trap manufacturers
have made efforts to do research and develop new traps. In 1989, Savage’s, Ron
Coburn designed a funnel trap utilizing water and oil
film on the impact plates to totally eliminate the
dust generation from the projectiles impact on the steel impact plates. Although
very effective in
reducing downrange contamination, it is believed to increase long-term
maintenance cost. Cost, due to the creation and the recovery and disposal of a
hazardous water oil waste, increase in humidity and clogging of the recirculating system with paper bits. That has made
it difficult for designers to fully accept this method
as being the answer to bullet traps. However, it has promise
aesthetically. Increased (oil/water) humidity in the range, we are told
by users, makes the range seem slippery and paper pieces in the water that make it a past the screens
stops flow and burns out the pumps. |
|
Probably the closest to desirable to date of the soft traps that
works best are the low volume shooting chopped rubber
traps. These bullet traps capture projectiles intact and allow for full
recovery without generating a mixed waste stream. The bullet trap is
constructed on a concrete sloped floor or preferably
with a steel support frame and a soft rubber sheet front, which allows
all bullets to penetrate intact 4 to 6 inches into the matrix. The space
created between the steel and rubber sheet is filled
with pieces of recycled rubber tire sidewalls. Bullets pierce the front
rubber sheet and then the square rubber pieces stop the bullet
intact through friction by about 6”deep from the surface. |
|
The bullets and the rubber pieces are periodically extracted from
the bottom through a slide gate fully intact, ready
for recycling. The trap must be recycled monthly to
preclude the hard armorizing packing of the rubber surfaced with lead. Once
every 18 months or so, the rubber must be shoveled out
and a complete sifting must be done. These traps can also
catch fire so a fire retardant is added to eliminate that condition. If
these traps, which are labor intensive, are not
maintained they wouldn’t work as intended. Tests performed on soft rubber traps
reveal that there are no lead emissions generated at the trap;
furthermore, the
rubber pieces do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic for lead under the RCRA
TCLP definition. The rubber material can be reused for the life of the
trap and not result as a hazardous waste upon closure. |
|
The choice of bullet trap also very much affects the ventilation
design and cost. Rubber traps require two (2) stage
filtration and steel backstops require three (3) stage filtration. Both require
HEPA filtration as the last filter. LEO’s need
to train with their carry ammunition. In my opinion, round nose totally
encapsulated ammunition introduced in the 1960’s or
jacketed hollow point with no lead primers fit that bill,
both at economic prices. They are fully equivalent, ballistically to any of the
duty ammo. That is what I recommend in my designs. |
|
Ammunition manufacturers have taken the initiative but perhaps
sometimes in the wrong direction, at the behest of the
Federal Government over the last 12 years, to research lead-freebullets and
lead-free primers. “Green ammunition” is the result.
“Lead free bullets”, the
“Green Ammunition” are the politically correct, all encompassing
terminology applied that does not offer much definitive information on
how to solve the problem. Green ammunition includes
zinc ammunition, frangible copper ammunition, solid
copper ammunition, soft nose zinc ammunition, jacketed wound zinc ammunition and
jacketed tungsten ammunition, etc. Each provides
alternatives for trap and ventilation design but does not
eliminate the recycle problem and each has unintended consequences.
Bullets manufactured outof non-lead ingredients appear to pose less of a risk to humans, when the
ammunition also incorporates lead free primers, but
pose equal or greater risk to the environment than the lead
munitions. |
|
None of the metals used for “green ammunition”, when out of
place, are environmentally benign. For example sintered copper bullets the one
“green bullet” out of the bunch, which still seems
viable turns to fine powder upon impact with the trap or steel target. The fine
copper now has to be collected and recycled in its entirety or environmental problems will result.
Copper acts is a fungicide and is detrimental to
marine organism larvae. When zinc projectiles are used
and are shot into existing lead deposits, the value of the lead
deposit goes to zero since that deposit can no longer then be recycled.
It must now be disposed of as hazardous waste. We also
understand that shortly wound zinc projectiles will no longer be
manufactured. How many recyclable lead deposits on ranges have been
ruined and are now hazardous waste, because zinc
bullets were used? There are inherent legal problems
training with non-carry ammunition. The weight of non-lead
bullets, are on average 25% less than that of standard lead projectiles
by caliber and therefore accuracy is reduced at the firearms effective distances (long distances). Pistol
harmonics and point of aim, likewise, change and occur
at the shorter distance. So if a different practice round is
trained with, the arguments can always be raised that it is different
than the carry ammunition and the legal argument is
created. |
|
Military doctrine has always required engaging the enemy with
mass firepower at the maximum effective distance of
the firearm (whoever puts the most steel down range wins). Police trainers’
doctrine should also do the same. But, even if you are practicing and not
hitting to the same point of aim with the duty and
practice ammo, the lighter, non-lead practice ammo won’t do.
Training with
firearms requires developing proficiency at the weapons tactical or practical
longest distances. That must be learned first. Close in rapid tactical
drills come in second. |
However, if perceived recoil is different between a 100-grain and 140-grain
bullet, a legal argument is again created.
Non-lead practice ammunition has no military value for combat. Lead again
is and remains
because of its weight and position in the periodic table, the main component for
small arms projectiles of choice.
In our opinion, LEO’s need to practice and qualify with what the less
expensive issue
ammunition or be subject to lawsuit, especially after a “bad” shooting incident.
From a cost standpoint, why shoot more expensive copper frangible and then have
to qualify with lead on the samerange when what you end up doing is
contaminating the existing copper dust deposits with lead
and then you can’t recycle any of it? |
|
The big break in ammunition technology, with respect to LEO
training and environmental concerns, has only been the
development of the lead heavy metal free reliable primers. Air
sampling conducted at live shoots, with various totally encapsulated
projectiles and lead free primer products is reported
to have consistently proven to totally eliminate breathable lead
exposure at the firing line. The problem with the acceptance of the
non-lead primed ammunition for tactical use has been
that the non-lead primers are less sensitive than those with lead styphnate
primer and increases the chance of misfires occurring,
due to no ignition. This problem is being worked on. We
certainly do not want misfires happening in a shoot out. Another problem
is that non-lead primers were and are hydroscopic and
may not store well. Blount, Remmington and Winchester as well as others, continue
development with new ways of manufacturing propellant
charges with non-metallic and non-lead bullets. Blount, CCI Blazer’s
appear to be setting the standards in this area of technology with their
more reliable lead-free primers. Lead free primers
have little effect on velocity and points of aim, thus maintaining
weight and velocity consistent to that of standard lead primed current
carry ammunition. |
If a department is unwilling or unable to implement the lead management
practices that we have known of for 12 years now, then
perhaps they should use non-lead “green ammunition”. It
should be realized though that the use of green ammunition is only one of
the many alternative
Best Management Practices for shooting ranges. It is not, however, the panacea
and their use will have unintended consequences. The
problems with non-lead alternative projectiles go far
beyond the cost of the round. There are the ballistic performance shortcomings
as previously
discussed and yet unknown health and environmental risks. We know the risks for
lead and know how to handle them. |
|
A fine point, but points to be considered by the industry arenon-lead
ammunition. It is available to the military and law
enforcement but is illegal for the public to purchase or possess. Frangible
copper ammunition is not designed for hunting and if used, a brush buster
shot or a bad hit would result in only wounding and
animal cruelty. Non-lead ammunition is not accurate enough for
competitive target shooting. |
We now believe that zinc ammunition will be removed from the
market place shortly so we won’t discuss that further.
However, the Army’s tungsten “green bullet” a more recent debacle is
a perfect example of the unknown risks of proposed “wondermetals”. On
paper the tungsten
metal compound proposed for the Army’s “green bullet” program looked great and
development went forward. When real-world fate and
transport studies were done, it turned out that the
tungsten compound created unintended consequences worse than lead. Soil pH
dropped as much as 5 full points, resulting in negative impacts on vegetation and organism in
the environment, as well as having 100% cancer rates
in test rats. Can you imagine what could have happened if
implemented for existing military ranges? The use of the Army’s “green
bullets” on an existing lead range would have decreased soil pH and INCREASED lead mobility in large
sites. Clearly not the intended result! |
|
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, has committed
to 16 million rounds per year and is “the driving
force behind the development of lead alternative ammunition”, but
FLETC also has also acknowledged that lead alternative ammunition
technology is NOT acceptable for duty use; they
express a desire and opinion that it will be someday. FLETC
developed their lead abatement strategy because of citations by EPA prior
to the EPA’s development of lead Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) and an EPA action due to FLETC’s
past problems managing lead. We have come through the zinc experiments and now in
light of the Army’s green bullet test results, if, any
assertion that non-lead ammunition is comparable to lead ammunition remarks is
just plain wrong. Balancing firearms training requirements vs.
environmental stewardship is the balancing process the
range design engineer and owner have to achieve. Completely eliminating an
environmental risk is not possible. Minimizing risk certainly is. |
I suggest totally encapsulated lead projectiles, non-lead primed
ammunition for our designs. I take the common sense
approach to the minimization of lead impacts on humans and the
environment, and
adopting range BMP’s as follows:
• Utilize totally enclosed jacketed ammunition
• Utilize lead-free primers
• Install proper ventilation to assure adequate air movement and pressure in the
breathing space and HEPA filter the air to be breathed
• Instituting Range Operational Rules only proper ammunition used, wash hands,
etc.
• Eliminating lead dust generation at the bullet trap by proper choice of traps.
• Recycle whatever you use Utilizing the above BMP’s
will eliminate 100% of the lead health safety problem in the range,
due to projectiles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
