Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-05; City Council; 21957; Denying Gunther’s Guns Shooting Range Appeal Part 3 of 5Shannon Werneke From: S<:nt: To: Subject Attachments: · Mr. Neu and Ms. Werneke: Dan Cotton <dccpa52@yahoo.com> Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:21AM Don Neu; Shannon Werneke GuntherGuns Shooting Range-MCUP 14-17 Gunther Guns Shooting Range Letter.pdf Attached is my letter supporting the establishment of the Gunther Guns recreational shooting range in the City of Carlsbad. Thank you for your consideration of my letter and your support for the recreational shooting range. Sincerely, Dan E. Cotton 1 058 Alexandra Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 1 Carlsbad Plam1~ng Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCtJP 14-17 -GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: 1 am requesting thal you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Depa!·tment's decision that a controlled indoo1· shooting range cannot be considered a rec.reationaJ use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, J vv·onld come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in !he:; area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as .a recreational opportunity that is Lllrn.:nlly lucking in Carlsbad. lt is our understanding that i[ an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use 1t >vo~tld be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional l)se Penn it in the P-M Zone. 1t is disappointing to me that staff can frnd that an ice sl<ating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-cart~, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting l'or many ye~rs and would appreciate lu1ving a high llual.ity facUlty in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. l respectfully request that yo!l uphold the ,appeal of st~frs position and make the detennination that. in indooi· shooting range is recreational use; which would he allowable at27l7 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sim:t:rdy. ~r,Z_~ J) qV\ E. Co+ -}-ol/) ( osg A )e>(Q'""Prq Lct"1e.. t=v1 l,'n;1-~~ CA ~L!VL-'+ I 41/ Christopher Carlson 3904 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 ..... ' 2 From: George Freese [mallto:freese4sum@gmail.com} Sent: Sunday, January 25,2015 7:00PM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: Proposed new Shooting Range My friends and I love taking our families to the range for recreational shooting and gun safety. Having one in close by in Carlsbad would be incredible. thanks, l5 year resident, George Freese 415" From: Rick [mailto:toy4rlck@cox.net) Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:21PM To: Shannon Werneke SubJect: RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Ms. Wemeke, .... , ) / I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad It is my understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use, it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in. Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that an indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use :Permit. Sincerely, Rick Schleicher Vista, CA Sent from my iPad 417 From: Jeremy Crooks [mallto:xcrooksx@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 201S 10:41 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker A venue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Jeremy D. Crooks From: Zach Puentes [mailto:zpuentes@ymail.com) Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 3:33 PM To: Shannon Werneke Subject: Gunther guns Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14~17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subjectto administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staffs position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Zachary Ray Puentes Sent from my iPhone From: Mark Wasr [mailto:churchofchrlst.member@gmail.coml Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:42 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MCUP 14-17-GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners: I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. Although I do not live in Carlsbad, I would come to Carlsbad to utilize a high quality indoor shooting facility and patronize other businesses while in the area. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I do not ice skate or drive go-carts, but I do enjoy recreational shooting. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Mark Wasr 42v --------···· .. ···-·· ·-·---------·· ····--······-··-.. -·····-··-------·---·--·. \. I From: kennedyjosephf. [mallto:kennedyjosephf@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:50 PM To: Shannon-Werneke Subject: GUNTHER'S GUNS SHOOTING RANGE Dear Commissioners, ) As a resident of Carlsbad, I am requesting that you please approve the appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Department's decision that a controlled indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational use. I as well as many others consider shooting at an indoor range as a recreational opportunity that is currently .lacking in Carlsbad. It is our understanding that if an indoor shooting range was classified as a recreational use it would be permitted subject to administrative approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the P-M Zone. It is disappointing to me that staff can find that an ice skating rink, children's swimming facility and indoor go kart track can be considered as recreational facilities while an indoor shooting range cannot be considered a recreational facility. I enjoy recreational shooting just as much as go-carting and ice skating if not more. I have enjoyed recreational shooting for many years and would appreciate having a high quality facility in Carlsbad. An indoor range would offer a recreational opportunity that currently does not exist in Carlsbad. I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal of staff's position and make the determination that in indoor shooting range is recreational use, which would be allowable at 2717 Loker Avenue in Carlsbad's PM zone subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Joseph F. Kennedy 760-845-0868 kennedxjosephf@gmail.com 421 ) From: Wilde, John [mailto:John.Wilde@thennofisher.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:41 AM To: Don Neu; Shannon Werneke Subject: Support for Gunther Guns Importance: High Dear Counsel Members, Please allow Guther Guns to get permitted for a shooting range at their facility. As a professional working in Carlsbad I would be very happy to have an option to exercise my fireann hobby and improve my safety. I would go and use their facility a couple times a month and know many other professionals that would as well, This would not only be a great option for local residents but it will also increase Carlsbad's tax revenue. In observing how the Guthers run their existing business I have no doubt that their range would be a safe and professional value added recreation option for the City of Carlsbad. Thanks for your consideration, John Wilde Training Program Manager, Services and Support Life Sciences Solutions Thermo Fisher Scientific 5781 Van Allen Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Office 760 268 5535 Mobile 760 429 4578 john.wilde@tiJermofisher.com www.lifetechnologies.com This message may contain confidential and/or privileged Information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any Information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. 423 They replaced :filters in the range exhaust ventilation system and scraped and oiled the steel bullet trap weekly. Numerous deficiencies were found (Table 2). Six full-shift personal air samples from monitors worn by showroom employees had lead concentrations of 5.5-19 J1g/m3, within the current OSHA occupational exposure limit of so Jlgfm3. Two task-based air samples for lead had high short-term ( <lhour) concentrations of 54 Jl.g/m3 (for nightly range maintenance) and 64 J1g/m3 (for weekly range cleaning). Lead was detected on all surfaces tested. Employee BLL testing had been conducted for the first time immediately before the NIOSH evaluation, and BLLs ranged from 19.9 Jl.g/dL to 40.7 Jl.gfdL. No employees had undergone other medical surveillance as required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and OSHA (3). Recommendations were made to minimize employee and customer exposure to lead, and the county public health officer was notified regarding risks to customers from airborne and surface lead exposure. Employees were advised to send family members for BLL testing because of the potential for take-home lead exposures. Discussion The ABLES data and the two investigations summarized in this report document serious lead exposure from indoor firing ranges {4). Employers in general industry are required by law to follow the OSHA lead standard established in 1978 (3,5). OSHA considers the permissible airborne lead exposure limit of so J1g/m3 and allowable BLLs to be outdated (5,6).* The National Toxicology Program recently released a monograph on the potential health effects of low-level lead exposure to adults (7) (Table 3). In 2013, the California Department of Public Health recommended that the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health lower the permissible exposure limit for lead in air to o.s- 2.1 J1g/m3 to keep BLLs below the range of 5-10 Jl.g/dL (B). Guidelines for management of lead exposed employees (9) are endorsed by the California Department of Public Health, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and recommended by NIOSH (1). Importantly, these guidelines are not based on airborne lead levels, but on monitoring BLLs, which can reflect exposure through any route. BLLs should be kept below 10 Jl.g/dL for all adults, and below 5 Jl.g/dL for children and pregnant women (9). The findings in this report also suggest that firing range customers and family members of firing range employees, in addition to employees themselves, can be exposed to hazardous amounts of lead. There are an estimated 19 million active target shooters in the United States (10). The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, employers might not provide BLL testing to all lead-exposed employees as required. Second, adults with non-work- related exposures are not likely to be tested, and BLLs of recreational shooters are not consistently available. Third, certain laboratories might not report BLL test results as required. Fourth, how many of the elevated BLLs were related to firing range exposures is not known. Because the OARI industry category includes industries other than firing ranges (e.g., miniature golf courses and billiard parlors), it is possible that some OARI workers with occupational BLL elevations were not employed in firing ranges. Finally, the two investigations did not determine the full extent of take-home exposures and other sources of lead exposure among firing range workers and customers. 10. National Shooting Sports Foundation. The shooting sports, 2014. Newtown, CT: National Shooting Sports Foundation; 2014. Available at http://www.nssf.org/shooting/sports@. What is already known on this topic? Guidelines for the management of lead-exposed adults at or above the current CDC reference blood lead level (BLL) of 10 Jlg/ dL are available. Despite public health outreach and comprehensive guidelines for controlling lead exposure in indoor firing ranges, these ranges continue to be a prominent source of lead exposure and elevated BLLs. What is added by this report? Data collected by the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance program in 41 states during 2002-2012 identified 2,056 persons with BLLs ~10 Jlg/dL who were likely exposed to firearms at work and an additional2,673 persons likely exposed by non-work-related target shooting. Two investigations highlight the nature of lead exposure in firing ranges. What are the implications for public health practice? Employees and customers of indoor firing ranges, and their family members, continue to be exposed to hazardous amounts of lead. Lead exposures in firing ranges can be reduced by improving ventilation systems, use of wet mopping or high-efficiency particulate air vacuuming to remove dust and debris, and use of lead-free bullets. Public health practitioners, state and government agencies, and community organizations should be encouraged to increase lead exposure prevention efforts directed at employers, employees, and the community. TABLE 1. Number and percentage* of adults with elevated blood lead levels (~10 pg/dL), by selected categories-Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) program, United States, 2002-2012 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Category N (%) No. (%) o. 0 No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Adults with work-related exposures from firearm use, by industry subsector Police Protection, NAICS code 92212 BLL ~25 21 (0.3) 16 (0.2) 5 (0.1) 13 (0.2) 6 (0.1) 11 (0.2) Jlg/dL BLL10-19 (0.3) 16 (0.2) 21 (0.3) 24 (0.3) 40 (o.s) 45 (0.6) 24Jlg/dL All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries, NAICS 71399 (including firing ranges) BLL~25 41 (o.6) 43 (0.6) 31 (o.s) 47 (o.8) so (0.7) 47 (0.7) Jlg/dL 15 (0.2) 18 (0.3) 24 (0.3) 51 (0.7) 43 (o.s) 58 (0.7) 431 Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MWR were current as of the date of publication. All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800 (!~.Contact GPO for current prices. **Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov. Page last reviewed: April 25, 2014 Page last updated: April 25, 2014 Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, USA Boo-CDC-INFO(!; (800-232-4636 \£.1) TIY: (888) 232-6348 (!i-Contact CDC- INFO ~* ..-··~ USA.gov \,.-! Government Mode Easy ·~ ........ iz~ 437 J~;ttJ~~/~~" ~~ . . ~~1 A.BLE OF CONTENTS ~~~~j .. ,,, __ J'"b*'~',. }1t.?l.: :o'l)"t..··:a,'''< • ·'·",1 J1;,J·~·~' ... j:,-.,."'..;):;,·~::...r.::.r"•,~,/:tl' Introduction ............. ~ ................... , ................ 1 Human Risks ................................................ 4 Sources of Lead at Your Range ............................. , .. ; .... 6 OSHA General Industry Lead Standard .............................. 7 Exposure Monitoring .......... , ................................ 8 Air Monitoring For Lead ......................................... 9 Non-lead Ammunition ......................................... 10 Mechanical Ventilation ........................................ 11 Range Hou.sekeeping ....... I I •• I • I I • I I I I ••• I I I • a •••• I ••• I If •••• 13 Hygiene Practices ......................... ~ .................... 14 Administrative Controls .. · ...................................... 14 Protective Work Clothing ...................................... , 15 Respirators ................................................ 16 Employee Information and Training ............................... 20 Lead Medical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Recordkeeping .. , ................... -... I I ............. _ •••••• : • 24 DISCLAIMER This manual is intended to provide useful general information to shooting range managers and developers. The National Shooting Sports Foundation neither certifies nor approves specific business plans. This manual is not a substitute for consultation with accountants, legal counsel and other appropriate professionals who can make specific recommendations for individual ranges. Lead Management and OSHA Compliance for Indoor Shooting Ranges ©2011 NSSF All rights reserved. This book or portions thereof may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. All inquiries should be addressed to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 11 Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470-2359. ~ '"1il ~~~=7;· XPOSURE MONITORING <; f ' "l ~ --~,,,j l . • 1•..,;.-l';{!%_~k .. ,.._;-ll/f~ l • ~ ' • " "-(, .... "',sj::<t:.,, 1~,",j ' -"'-~~· ,if<ll •,"'"' ;.: 8 ::;"" ~~ Initial Determination. If any lead is used in the workplace, the employer must measure the amount of lead in the air for a representative number of employees who are reasonably believed to have the highest exposure levels. The employer must conduct personal air monitoring for each job classification and (at a minimum) the shift with the highest exposure level. The monitoring must be perfonned while employees perfonn tasks that are representative of their normal tasks and responsibilities. The purpose of this initial detennination is to find out whether airborne lead levels are at or above the Action Level. The employer must collect full-shift, personal samples in the employee's breathing zone. Depending on the results of the initial determination, employers may have additional responsibilities. { If the initial determination is less than the AL, no further assessment is needed. You do, however, need to make a written record of how you arrived at the determination. If there is a determination that exposure levels are at or above the AL, personal air monitoring must be repeated at least every six months for a representative number of employees. If personal air monitoring shows that airborne lead levels are above the AL for more than 30 days per year, the employer must provide a pre-placement medical exam and biological monitoring every six months for each employee that will be exposed to lead. If the initial determination is at or above the PEL, the employer must reduce employee exposure below the PEL. In addition, personal air monitoring must be done quarterly. If personal air monitoring shows that airborne lead levels are above the PEL for more than 30 days per year, the employer must implement all feasible engineering, work practice; and administrative controls to reduce air lead levels to below the PEL. When all feasible controls are in place and are still ius\1fficient to reduce air lead levels below the PEL, respirators must be used to reduce employee exposure ~o that no employee is exposed above the PEL on any day. The employer must develop and implement a plan to reduce air lead levels to or below the PEL. This plan must be in writing and must be reviewed and updated at least every six months. At a minimum, the plan must include: • Description of each operation in which lead is emitted. • Description of the specific means that will be used to achieve compliance. • Report of the technology considered in meeting the PEL • Air monitoring data that documents the source of lead emissions. • Detailed schedule for implementation of the program. • Work practice program. • Administrative control Gob rotation) schedule, if applicable. Additional Monitoring. If there is a change of equipment, process, control, personnel or a new task has been initiated which could increase the concentration of lead in the air, you must re-test to make a new determination. Employee Notification. The employer must notify each employee in writing of the results of personal air monitoring that represents the employee's exposure within 5 working days of receiving the results. If air lead levels are above the PEL, the employer must also include a written notice telling employees that the air lead levels exceeded the PEL and describing the corrective action the employer has taken or will take to reduce exposure to or below the PEL. 446 ' '~··· ... ~· must establish and implement a job rotation schedule that includes the following: • Name or ID number of each affected employee • Duration and exposure levels where the affected employees are located • Any other information that may be useful in assessing the reliability of administrative controls to reduce lead exposure. Some ranges have found they can reduce workers' compensation insurance costs by assigning the fewest number of employees to tasks that include potential lead exposure. Workers' compensation insurance premiwns are significantly higher for employees that have a lead exposure risk.. If an employee has even a small task that includes potential lead exposure, a higher workers' compensation insur.mcc premium rate may apply. So, if you divide range-related work tasks among a greater nwnber of employees you will pay the higher premi~ for all of those employees. If you reduce the nwnber of employees with range-related tasks and assign the rest1Lo tasks that do not have a lead exposure risk (such as cashier, administrative assistant, floor sales clerk, etc), you may only have {o pay the higher premium for the small number of employees working on the range and a much lower premium for the rest of your staff. Limiting the number of employees with potential lead exposure can also result in lower costs for medical surveillance and other functions related to lead management There are advantages-and disadvantages-to both approaches. . ~),:ROTECTIVE WORK CLOTHING . . i•'•.lil'~t.,." . : ' ·.' ·, ,,., . ." • . . ·, ., . ' ' ' " . ' >!' Whenever personal air monitoring shows that air lead levels are above the PEL or an employee experiences skin or eye irritation, OSHA regulations require the employer to: • Provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate protective work clod1ing and· equipment such as coveralls or other full body clothing, gloves, hats, shoes, eye protection, er.c. • Provide the protective clothing in a clean and dry condition at least weekly. Clothing must be provided daily to workers who work in areas where airborne lead exposure levels exceed an eight-hour time- weighted average of200 (pg/M3). · • Provide for cleaning, laundering, or disposal of protective clothing and equipment • Repair or replace protective clothing and equipment as necessary. • Prohibit the removal oflead from protective clothing or equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other means, which disperses lead into the air. • Ensure that employees use appropriate protective clothing and equipment, remove contaminated work clothing at the end of the shift in change rooms provided for that purpose, and place it in a closed container. OSHA requires the container to be labeled as folloW!!: CAUTION: CLOTHING CONI'AMINATED WlTH LEAD. DO NOT REMOVE DUST BY BLOWlNG OR SHAKING. DISPOSE OF LEAD-CONTAMINATED WASH WATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL REGUlATIONS. . • lnfonn, in writing, any person who cleans or launders protective clothing or equipment of the potential harmful effects of lead. The performance of range maintenance, cleaning or reclaiming activities are tasks that are likely to have the highest exposure levels. For this reason, the use of protective clothing during these activities may be a consideration. 15 45Z. ~ ....J ~ OSH.' 1\ 's CQ rm 301 ei'Jl)loyee heaHh and must be used in a manner that Attention: Ttls form contains infoi111Eition relating to ~ /""\ r I f 4 protects !he confidentiality of employees to the extent Injury and Illness Incident Report ==~!!in~~rnat!:~~~~~for -.!~~.~ This Injury and ~ss l111:idnal R.tpot~ ~ one of the first fomu you mwrt fill out wlk."' a rcronlable wo~k· l'elated injury or iDnen has occuned. Together with the Log of Wa'*·lMlltLtllnjH.ri<s tmd llbus.m ;o.nd the accompanying SUM~~~ary, these forms help the employer and OSHA develop a picture of the CKtenl and severity of work--related incidents. Within 7 calendar days after you receive iufurrnation that a recordable work-related injury or mncss has oocur-rcd, you must 611 out th~ form or an equivaleru.. Some state workers' compensation, insurance, or other reports rmoy be acceptable substimtcs. To be considered an equivalent form, any Sllbstirute nmst contain aU the info~mation asked for on thh form. According to Public Law 91-596 and 29 CFR 1904, OSH.~s recordkeeping rule, you mwrtl<eep tbis form on 6lc for 5 years following the year to which it pertains. U you need additional copies oftbis form, you may photocopy and use as many as you need. iComp~b;r ______________________________ _ ·nue ________________________________ _ Pbo .... (______). Dale __j -'--- lnfOI'IIUtlon about fM ~ l) hiiJ>OmO ----------;---------- %) -------------------- Ciry StMc: _____ rrP ___ _ ., Dotootblrtk __ t __ , __ _ 4) Dooebhood ···-'--'-- 5) LJ M.oJ• LJ """""" lnfomurUon -.bout Ute phs--i<:£8n or ofhel' bulth c.n~ proft!a/tllllll 6l NamoofpO,.....ooroth.abal .. c""'~ 7) lf'lft*mmt,... P"a:a a-y fnnu tb,., wwbile, ~was k ~? ~~---------------------------------- (A(y Scatc ___ ZII' ___ __ I) Wuc:D1plqft ~ m-. •mapnq ~ LJY<o LJ No 91 W..omplo7• bo1~ed ...,m~, •• •ID·pa~ LJv.. LJ No .. -~ :FonlliWO"cd OHB uo. I'!IR-017G lnformlrtlon Mc>tlf ftMJ c•- 101 c...,....,...-doc We _______ (IIw"'{"'"IN""'.....!wrf..,.llo;I.Afl.fkrY""...,.,jtif<<rou.J II) DMooliDJu"7odll---'---'-- 1!) 'l'imecmploroebopo.~ AM/P>I 13) Time.:JE.C'V'GIC AM /I'M 0 Clood< If time <OIIDDt be delenlllacd 14) -... --..--.-----FD<:ocribetbo o<lhlty,aswdl»the -._ "''odpalem, or material tbe cmplay<c _, uolag. Be 1pecilic. ~: McUmhlq oladdOI" while cwtyiq J:tJCJiins" molerlols"; •opnoyfnj; cll!.orlnc fnna h011d opn1er"; Mdoil;r computer J<crcab:J< • 15) -•~To:ll"" to_. tbo iDJ"'J'occum!d...Eoo.mpl= "Wbenladde. •llppedOII•e< floor, -ur folJ ~0 fed"; "Wooer_. opnyed with dllorine ..ben p&..,t bro~ daring nploccmcm''; "Worker developed ~ in wrist Ol'a' time..," : 16) ---~ tw .lllaeos1'TcU ,.. tbe pti< ol. the body <hat wu d&ctod oad bow It woo affected; hoc 11110Ce.spec:lfic tb:aa "bllf\" '~aiD," C)t' IIOC'e., btiMpk6! ''frti'IUned. back"'; Clr;laemical bum, baacJ"'; "'CAI'pll ~syn.di"'Ode." 1'1) ...., ~ 111 ~e .flbwol:ly,.,..,., rh ~1' Em.ples: '11concrete floor .. ; "dt.lorine''; "ndioo ana -"lflJ.b '2""'""" dou-ai'fHy •• tile mdd-l, ~. ...... it blan~ 181 "-~~--.,_,.,.._,..,...ord ... "' ---'---'-- l"uhlic n:ponins; burd6n ror th.ill c:uli«'C.o11 c>fiqf~ iJ~ 1:0 nn"a.gt" 2t Dlinotn prt r~. indud.llf ~ fOr roicw_..g inwucdonl, sc::archiogoi!XBiing da.ta ~ ~ ....J. loa.'inllllnit!J tlu-dXI neo~!.d~ alld O)ftlplr.Lins aad n:..Y...ing deo a.tlectioa tLIJUorm&dion. Pcnoru ur nul ~lflmod: to rapond ID lhr cutlt'CtiUI::I. 0( rnrot1rutiun ulllcu il di:spLiys .a~ Cl&tft'lll: ,-alid Oklf. CD~:~ bUt rwnabcT.lf )'OU ~m,.,. .:.y aJm!DD)DI ;~bcxJt whir mlroat:r crrany oXhtr ~'«!.hi.; WK. ~llcdion, indudins ~f fvr red.udn!J thai burden. cnn1uc L.:S lkplmJloCflt of l..Jboc. OSHA Oilier of ~I .Malr,ds. K.uam. N·5Got<'l, 200 Cunlllihnior! A'tUUt". ""'W. \~~hinglnn, nc S!021{1. Do not ~pel tl~C' OJmpk&ed lorats 'ft lba.fl'lfa:c-. w ...... ,\ ::,, I. :1 ~ ·-· . ··~ . '/.•' ·; '· "\ .. , .. ,.:·:i{ (_._.: RCRA established a "cradle to grave" regulatory scheme for the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The leading federal case in the field is Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. The first such suit against a private range, it resulted in the closing of the Lordship Gun Club in Stratford, Connecticut, operated by Remington Arms Company.75 The Lordship trap and skeet range was located on Long Island Sound, directly across the mouth of the Housatonic River from two wildlife refuges. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, "After nearly 70 years of use, close to 2,400 tons of lead shot (5 million pounds) and 11 million pounds of clay target fragments were deposited on land around the club and in the adjacent waters of Long Island Sound."76 A 1987 study documented acute lead poisoning in 15 of 28 black ducks captured in the area. Concerned about the effects of the range's operations, the Connecticut Coastal Fisherman's Association filed a lawsuit against the range, citing the CWA and RCRA. The case eventually wound up in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which made three significant rulings: • The CWA complaint was moot because the range had suspended operations and was unlikely to resume. In short, past violations will not support a CWA suit so long as it appears that operations have been permanently suspended. • Under EPA's regulations and interpretations, shooting range operations do not constitute "discarding" a hazardous waste, and therefore do not require a permit. • However, the deposited lead and potential target debris do constitute hazardous solid wastes that present a substantial threat to the environment. The range was therefore subject to another provision of RCRA requiring remediation and cleanup, even though the range had ceased operations. As a result of this ruling, the range closed and Remington agreed to clean up both the lead and clay target waste. According to NSSF, several other ranges have been charged with violating CWA and RCRA, but most either went out of business, settled out of court, changed their shooting direction, or switched to non- toxic shot. 77 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund") One of the peculiarities of these laws, as interpreted by the EPA, is that so long as a range is being used, the lead and other toxic materials it dumps into the environment are not considered as being discarded or abandoned. Shooting ranges are therefore not required to get the permits that, say, a landfill or toxic dump would be required to have if it wished to deposit the same material. However, a range that is closed or abandoned triggers specific liabilities for lead and other toxic materials deposited on the land during shooting operations, since it is then considered to be "abandoned waste."78 The reported transport of lead waste to landfill dump sites by some range operators also could subject them to any future "superfund" liabilities of the disposal sites, according to the NRA's range development manager.79 Cleanup costs can be substantial: New York City reportedly paid a Canadian company $25 million to clean up a police shooting range in the Bronx. Company officials found the prospects of such work in the United States "promising," estimating that there were about 28,000 such potential cleanup sites in the country.80 The cost of cleaning up abandoned ranges often comes as a shocking surprise to new owners or to government units that operate or sometimes inherit the property in question. In some cases, governmental units simply continue the fiction that the abandoned range is still "in service" in order to avoid paying the costs. The following are representative examples of cleanup cases: • As part of a consent decree, current and past owners of a former Playboy Club property in Wisconsin agreed to pay the U.S. government $1,000,000 in cleanup costs for contamination from a trap and skeet shooting range. The contamination at the abandoned site was discovered after 200 geese died of lead poisoning. The federal government was reported to have spent $1.75 million for cleanup as of the time of the agreement.81 • The State of Massachusetts inherited a cleanup problem when it acquired a former resort that included a skeet shooting range.82 • Port Richey, Florida, was hit with a $50,000 cleanup bill after it learned that a children's play area called Totsville had been designed and built by a well-meaning volunteer on a site that had formerly been a city firing range. 83 • Port Salerno, Florida, was stuck with a $400,000 cleanup bill when tests of a proposed development site revealed contamination from an abandoned shooting range formerly used by the sheriffs office. B4 • Crystal River, Florida, dodged cleanup costs by simply fencing off a shooting range area, keeping it in limbo between its former use as a pistol range and any new use. Should the city decide to make use of the parcel, which one council member compared to an abandoned nuclear site, it would have to pay for the cleanup.85 • Brea, California, was sued by the owner of a parcel of land it leased for use as a firing range. The owner complained that the property lost value and that 165 tons of soil had to be removed as a result of lead contamination after 25 years of use.86 • Bay Village, Ohio, city officials abandoned cleanup plans when they saw a price tag of $600,000 to clean up an estimated 150 tons of lead blasted into Lake Erie over several decades by a private gun club. The federal EPA looked the other way. "Why invite trouble?" said one city official, who admitted he was aware of the court ruling in the similar Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association case.87 These and other abandoned range cases pose a serious question for communities with existing or newly proposed range operations: who will pay the cleanup bill when the shooters have moved on?88 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) established a national scheme to control and minimize the impact that federal government actions-including tax-subsidized activities-have on the environment. Prominent among these is the requirement that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for any major federal action that might significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 89 No one appears yet to have explored whether, given the extensive federal assistance extended to the gun industry for its shooting range programs, certain federal agencies-such as the Fish & Wildlife Service-should be required to develop such plans. Other Major Pollution Sites · A number of other shooting range environmental horror stories can be found in news reports from all over the country. The following are a few representative examples: • Westchester County, New York, entered into a consent decree with the EPA to clean up contamination from lead and targets at its Sportsmen's Center, located next to an elementary school. EPA sued the county under the imminent hazard provision of RCRA.90 The case prompted NSSF executive Bob Delfay to complain, "Lead is a four-letter word these days."91 :=lV:?.~r: t"r·.-::~' r.?.nLlmm£fiwVRf!E.JA(JXMmlf~ at a firing range, even fo~ SHARE members of the general public." The problem oflead exposure need not be part of the debate raging over gun rights in America, said Kentucky firearms instructor Colleene Barnett, who suffered from lead poisoning. "We need people to educate folks," she said. "The last thing you need is to stop shooting-and for people to hold lead against shooting as a sport." MARCUS YAM I THE SEATTLE TIMES James Maddox, who made $9 an hour working at Bluegrass Indoor Range in Louisville, Ky., experienced the effects of lead poisoning just six months into the job. "It just feels like someone unplugged me from the wall and I just lost all my power." His doctor warned him that his organs could start shutting down . A heavy diagnosis Tbf. ~DC ~+:<>.te~tblW£1JlWI'fi~~Allh JP'WPlplf!rns like organ damage at M WRE as 10 micrograms, though symptoms rarely appear. But OSHA's 36-year-old regulations say employees can have up to six times that amount oflead in their blood before being removed from the work area. The Times found many employees who'd already suffered significant health problems before reaching that threshold. Despite the CDC's concern, OSHA has yet to adopt more stringent lead regulations to protect workers. "OSHA recognizes that exposure to le<J.d is a significant hazard and that our lead standard is outdated," said David Michaels, an assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor. Changing the standard, he added, is highly complex and can take more than seven years. Jai'lles Maddox 5o.J_ D~·.r\ng [~Qg") CO..:wmfDiM'ffltm\tJnon.MrJM:ichaels said the appeal pr~~E flawed, pointing to 33 cases in which workers in various industries died while employers contested violations and fines. "The only situation worse than a worker being injured or killed on the job by a senseless and preventable hazard is having a second worker felled by the same hazard," Michaels said. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and other lawmakers proposed bills in 2013 to require abatement of serious hazards during an appeal, but the bills are languishing in committees. · Evan Satterwhite, director of Kentucky's occupational safety and health compliance at the time, said "it's not something we like," but he could do little while Underwood's appeal dragged on. "We're all for the Second Amendment, but he was deceiving employees while exposing them to an unhealthy chemical," Satterwhite said. 'JtJ6 Ch\1-:lrc-n who'lffli.1YEDW!Yfftfwife ~ ~an~;e have been poisoned by le~ SHARE tracked home by parents and others who worked or shot there. READ MORE • 1&1 learned the range's owners had no training about safe range operations. One ofthe owners even used a leaf blower to clean up, and the range employed a pregnant worker. Women can have miscarriages when overexposed to lead. The inspector cited Champion Arms for 15 violations, 13 of them deemed serious, meaning they posed a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm to workers. Fearing Champion Arms would put workers and the public at risk if it stayed open, officials with L&I's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) debated whether to shut it down. They could issue an "order and notice of immediate restraint" that forces a business to close until it fixes its problems. DOSH has issued more than 150 such orders since September 2004, though never for a gun range. "This is the worse (sic) indoor firing range DOSH has investigated certainly recently and potentially ever," Christian wrote later in an email to a state lawyer. But 1&1 management decided not to close it and couldn't explain why. "As a public range with the potential for underage kids using it in addition to adults, in retrospect I wonder at that decision," Christian's email said. h RH, CLinrriq_l@iAirtWfljwn .. FA>!Jld~resulted in fines up to $3~CSflARE But L&I fined it only $11,200, cutting the owners a break in part for being cooperative. But the owners stopped the clock when they contested the violations to the state Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, as is their right. Meanwhile, the range stayed open to the public. Finally, in October 2007, Champion Arms agreed to the state's violations and penalties. The range was placed on a six-month payment plan for the fines and promised to fix any outstanding violations in 15 days. L&I allows businesses to essentially police themselves by submitting an "Employer Certification of Hazards Corrected" form. Several months after the settlement, Geiss declared in writing that all violations had been fixed. By then, the range already had missed payments. But L&I didn't immediately check on whether the range had corrected its problems. In May 2008, inspectors received a report that another Champion Arms employee's blood had tested high for lead. Only then did L&I follow up to see if the range really had fixed the hazards. Inspectors were afraid to return to Champion Arms. "I have a concern about entering this location," a supervisor said by email. "There is no evidence that the ventilation system has been fixed." Later that month, inspectors again found rampant violations, including problems uncorrected since the 2006 inspection. Lead dust still contaminated the range's air; table and counter tops still remained coated in lead; and employees still lacked the required protective gear. 511 KENTUCKY LABOR CABINET ~s ~3:11 ~:; Lu:·, KJI!A(l#LWI"'flltU.A,l1 wdf~1de-s111"ety agency, determined that B~~~E Indoor Range had violated the law by overexposing employees to lead. The owner largely ignored the problems, and in 2011 an inspector tested the Bluegrass range floor, finding lead several hundred times over the acceptable limit for surfaces. lead-free bullets offer solution, but face industry push back Health experts say there's one surefire way to prevent lead poisoning at shooting ranges: Get the lead out. "As long as they're still using lead bullets, they're creating a hazard," said Dr. James Dahlgren, a Los Angeles-based physician who has treated and studied toxic chemical exposures since 1971. READ MORE • Lax regulation Federal OSHA officials can't say how many gun ranges have been inspected nationwide, because they can't track them. Ranges have registered themselves under such business categories as "all other amusement and recreational industries," which include bowling alleys and soccer clubs, and "sporting goods stores." One range claimed to be a shoe store, another a locksmith. OSHA handles workplace oversight for most states, but 21 states enforce their own occupational safety and health programs that typically mirror federal regulations. Yet whether under OSHA's or state jurisdiction, regulation of gun ranges is lax. 7117