Firearm Ordnance in my township?

[DeerSlayer 241]

You have any idea how much lead I deal with in plumbing systems every day. And unless your house was built this past year, all your faucets, valves, and other parts contain lead as well. This past year they dropped the legal limit from plumbing materials from .01% to 0.00%, I'm sure the supply houses threw all their current stock in the garbage and are no longer selling it The kicker is I can still strike up the flame on my lead pot, melt an entire crucible of inkets. Ladle after ladle pour hubed cast iron, joint after joint in any building I want to in the state. Perfectly acceptable by code still. I can also solder heating pipes and do boiler installation with lead soldier if I choose. And copper waste pipe as well. Heck I can even install lead bends for toilets still. So a bunch of bullets trapped in a pile of dirt in the back yard, dosent seem like such a big deal to me I guess.

 

[owadj01 0]

I think we get it from the same place we get asbestos. That has nothing to do with anything. There were chemical companies that dumped lots of stuff in NJ in the 50's and 60's and much of that was legal then, or even if not legal was a slap on the wrist type of thing. Those companies, if not sued out of business today have been forced to pay hundreds of millions to clean up what was once not considered a major problem. That is all that I am saying, it is probably not prudent to fill your property with lead. Just because it might not be a major issue today, I would venture to guess within 10 to 20 years it will come back to bite you.

I actually been pondering this issue myself lately as I'm hoping to move out in to the more rural area of Southern NJ and making sure I can shoot and not contaminate the ground water that I will likely be drinking is important. So being A. An engineer who openly admits not knowing everything and B. Someone who has been "attacked" for having an opinion others say is wrong and calling me an idiot/moron I'm not going to say you a wrong and say I would definitely validate what ever is saying about lead ammo not being like to contaminate soil/ground water in reasonable quantities on someone's property.

 

I will say this though, just like asbestos, there dangerous types of lead...like lead paint peeling off the wall of an old build, and just like asbestos there are pleanty of forms of lead that are not dangerous. I'm all for being safe and saving the environment but just like anti's there are many environmentalists who don't want to let facts get in the way of a good story. Given what is going on in California, I don't think the idea that laws could change here is far off the mark

 

Ammunition Under Attack: Anti-Hunting Groups are …:

 

 

[Howard 538]

I think some are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.  I have no personal issue with it, the only issue is the way environmental laws are going I can see this becoming an issue down the road.  That said, why risk it?  While Deerslayer is correct about lead in piping today, that too could change.  You do realize that asbestos was routinely used as pipe insulation for year and years.  Try to sell a property that has it today, you will not be a happy camper.  About 25 years ago I put a big addition on my house and had the contractor reside the entire house so that everything would match.  I had him remove all the existing asbestos siding rather than just put the new stuff on top of it.  He thought I was crazy, I had a feeling it would become an issue down the road; and today asbestos siding is an issue in selling a home.  Hey, if you want to fill your property with heavy metal, more power to you - no one is stopping you today.  It just seems like an imprudent risk the way are rules are going.

[The brew guy 22]

Mipafox got it right (looks like we're in a similar line of work), lead if not the hazard it's made out to be and is more easily remediated than most other hazards if the need were there.Just keep it out of the water and you should be fine.

[Barms 98]

So someone explain to me why the government cares about where the lead wipes go at an indoor range but there is still zero nada zilch restriction on using lead in upland hunting areas? Waterfowl restrictions yes. But upland no.

 

As far as they are concerned lead on the dirt is fine. So you may think it's toxic but the rules are the rules now and that's how an existing preserve area is allowed to have a range on it. Because there is no restriction on lead on dry wooded areas.

[Howard 538]

So someone explain to me why the government cares about where the lead wipes go at an indoor range but there is still zero nada zilch restriction on using lead in upland hunting areas? Waterfowl restrictions yes. But upland no.

 

As far as they are concerned lead on the dirt is fine. So you may think it's toxic but the rules are the rules now and that's how an existing preserve area is allowed to have a range on it. Because there is no restriction on lead on dry wooded areas.

I believe I was told that either DEP or OSHA was doing a routine inspection and was concerned that the lead contaminated wipes might be going into the regular garbage.  At Old Bridge Rifle & Pistol they have been forced by OSHA to read lead warnings to all participants each time they shoot a match and then sign a waiver at each match (that might be the club covering their ass).  I don't get why OSHA has anything to do with shooters at an event who I would consider customers not employees, since OSHA is chartered to protect workers only.  

[PK90 3,570]

Ordnance = arms and ammo

Ordinance = laws and regulations

[AdamM 42]

Asbestos is one of those political snow jobs (like "global warming"). Back in the late 80's my brother did an intern at a non-profit think tank. Among other things that they researched was asbestos. The "study" done on lung cancer was of people who *worked* in asbestos plants who also happened to be *cigarette smokers*. Big surprise that some of them got lung cancer, eh???

[mipafox 438]

 

I think you guys are missing the point about the lead.  First, while animals may flourish right now where there is lead; we all know that lead exposure has long-term impacts - but even that was not the issue.  The point is that while there may not be any laws right now, there is a high probability there will be in the future.  Just like people never thought they would have a problem with lead paint or asbestos, think about what you need to do about remediate if you try to sell a home today that has either one.  I would not think it a good idea to be spraying lead all over your property, it will likely bite you down the road. 

 

 

I think you might have missed my point. Elemental lead is not very mobile in the environment. Two people shooting at a 6 foot berm for 20 years would result in very minimal contamination, if any. It is unlikely the elemental lead would fail a TCLP test. If you put a bullet in a jar and it passes a TCLP test, as it is likely to do, it's not hazardous. But if it is, you are talking about removing the first 6" of soil over an area of a few square yards. The cost would be minimal. Like I said, you should be a lot more considered about any solvents you are spilling around your yard.

 

Hardly the same thing, and you are being quite silly.  You might not like what I am saying, but it is a path we are very likely to go down.  Lead is a proven health hazard. It has been removed from gasoline and paint due to those known health hazards.

There was no elemental lead in paint or gasoline.

 

This is not about the current law, or some future law we can't forsee. There are two issues:

 

1. Elemental lead is not as toxic as you seem to think it is, it is not very mobile in the environmental, and soil impacted with elemental lead is usually not harzardous.

 

2. As Deer Slayer Pointed out, you would not impact a large area with lead by shooting at a small berm.

 

These facts are based on science. No future regulation can make elemental lead more toxic. All NJ soil remediation standards must be health based, NOT warm and fuzzy based. Even if they are tweaked slightly, the new regulation cannot spread the lead all over your property from your berm.

 

I would estimate 10% OF ALL THE surficial soils in NJ have lead fractions higher than what would exist at your shooting range. And it is NOT elemental lead, either. You can look it up, it is called Historic Fill. You know what type of cleanup the NJDEP Requires for this contamination? NOTHING. Just a deed notice to let people know it is there when they buy the property.

 

It's not that an outdoor range CAN'T have an environmental liability associated with it. It's just that it doesn't most of the time, and when it does it is a very small environmental liability for the size, duration, and mass of contaminant when compared to other types of contamination. When you look at it in the context of a residential liability, it's just really a low priority in the things you need to worry about day to day.

 

Anybody ever pour a solvent our your back door? THAT you better worry about. You could easily have a $100,000 groundwater cleanup for that, and it doesn't matter whether you were the guy that poured it or somebody did it 100 years ago.

 

Have a septic system? What do you think the chances are anybody ever poured anything down the drain? Maybe rinsed off some gun solvent or something? Any paint stripper since your house has been built? That paint stripper went somewhere, and my bet is down the sink or out the back door. Remember when all kitchen and bath cleaners contained VOCs? Some still do. Simple green IS a VOC, up to 70% I think. They just consider it environmentally friendly (for now). So, what happens if I take a few groundwater samples around your septic system? BTW, I DO THAT for people that buy residential properties and are concerned about prior use or need an ASTM Phase I/II to get a commercial loan from the bank.

 

Your concern is indeed based in reality I just think you misunderstand the risk and the context. Now if you were going to buy a 5 acre property that had been used as a gun club for 80 years I think it would be reasonable to collect some samples and estimate the cost for a potential remediation as a negotiating point.

[Howard 538]

Hey, I don't have a problem with anyone dumping as much lead as they want in their backyard, I was just trying to say that it could be an issue down the road.  I also don't buy your opinion that it is not a potential problem, as the CDC study below of a brand new shooting range demonstrates based on measurements.  Will it likely be a problem for someone shooting in their backyard, probably not - but it's best to have the facts before you decide to take that step.  The issue with septic tanks is an issue, that is why sewers are so much better than using your property as a waste site with a septic tank

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/SupplementalOct04/Lead%20Contamination%20in%20Shooting%20Range%20Soils-Hardison.pdf

 

 

============================================================

Abstract: Contamination of shooting range soils from the use of Pb bullets is under increasing scrutiny. Past research on Pb contamination of shooting ranges has focused on weathering reactions of Pb bullets in soil. The objective of this study was to determine the significance of abrasion of Pb bullets in contributing to soil Pb contamination. This was accomplished by firing a known mass of bullets into sand and analyzing for total Pb after removing bullets, through field sampling of a newly opened shooting range, and a laboratory weathering study. Forty-one mg of Pb were abraded per bullet as it passed through the sand, which accounted for 1.5% of the bullet mass being physically removed. At a shooting range that had been open for 3 months, the highest Pb concentration from the pistol range berm soil was 193 mg/kg at 0.5 m height, and from the rifle range berm soil was 1142 mg/kg at 1.0 m height. Most soils from the field abrasion experiment as well as soil collected from the rifle range had SPLP-Pb > 15 t-Lg/I (Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure). Typically, Pb concentration in the rifle range was greater than that of the pistol range. Based on a laboratory weathering study, virtually all metallic Pb was converted to hydrocerussite (Pb3(C03 )2(OH)2), as well as to a lesser extent cerussite (PbC03 ) and massicot (PbO) within one week. Our study demonstrated that abrasion of lead bullets and their subsequent weathering can be a significant source of lead contamination in soils of a newly opened shooting range.

============================================

 

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that physical abrasion of Pb bullets passing through soil contributes substantially to soil Pb contamination in shooting ranges. The O.22-caliber bullet used in the field abrasion experiment is the smallest caliber that is typically used in shooting ranges. An increase in Pb contamination in the form of physical abrasion , would probably result from an increase in the size of caliber. This would be due to an increase in surface area of the bullet that is susceptible to physical abrasion as it passes through soil, as well as the fact that higher caliber rounds travel at higher velocities resulting in an increase in friction. This fine form of metallic Pb is rapidly converted to Pb-minerals, and may pose a risk to groundwater contamination in shooting range soils. Our research has demonstrated that Pb contamination (elevation of Pb concentrations in soils) as well as Pb transformation (from inert metallic Pb to more reactive Pb compounds) in shooting range soils occurs rapidly in newly opened ranges. Therefore, it is important to develop best management practice to minimize the adverse impacts of Pb in all shooting ranges regardless of their ages.

[Barms 98]

Yeah at Hudson the explanation was similar to like what Mipa said. Something about a lead bee bee is not the same toxicity. You just rake it up.

 

That's why they were stressing again "the plastic is way more damaging than the bee bees"

 

I have no horse in this race. I was just fascinated about the Hudson Farm explanation

[Parker 213]

So someone explain to me why the government cares about where the lead wipes go at an indoor range but there is still zero nada zilch restriction on using lead in upland hunting areas? Waterfowl restrictions yes. But upland no.

 

As far as they are concerned lead on the dirt is fine. So you may think it's toxic but the rules are the rules now and that's how an existing preserve area is allowed to have a range on it. Because there is no restriction on lead on dry wooded areas.

 

A few NJ state WMA shotgun practice ranges in wetland areas have closed their shotgun ranges to lead shot and mandate steel shot now. 

 

Troy Meadows trap range was closed some years ago, underwent a cleanup of "unsightly debris consisting of shotshell wads, broken clay targets and lead" in the soil because of its wetland preserve status. 

 

A number of mid-western states allow only steel shot on wildlife refuges, even though the pursuit of the hunt may be for upland game, and not waterfowl.

 

Lead over time has become a four-letter word.

[varna 9]

Trust me, if/when I sell my home the no one will even know there was a shooting area or backstop on my property. So, who would even look for it? If someone finds  lead shot on the ground at the back of my property I'll just blame in on the state WMA and the hunters.