Workshop on Shooting Ranges: Lead Reclamation Sound ... · PDF fileWorkshop on Shooting...

Workshop on Shooting Ranges:

Lead ReclamationSound Attenuation

Backstop Construction

Proceedings of theWorkshop on Shooting Ranges

October 2-3, 2007 – Palermo, Italy

Published by the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

3

Copyright

All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, this publication may not be reproduced, including by framing or similar means, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the WFSA. The contents of the document and of the attached CD belong to the respective contributors.

Disclaimer

The materials contained in these proceedings are provided by the WFSA as a service for non-commercial, personal use on an “as is, as available” basis and may be used for information purposes only. The WFSA assumes no responsibility for error or omissions in these proceedings. The WFSA makes no, and expressly disclaims any and all, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding these proceedings, including without limitation the accuracy, completeness or reliability of text and graphics. No advice or information given by the WFSA or any other party on these proceedings shall create any warranty or liability.

The WFSA does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the use of the materials in these proceedings in terms of their correctness, accuracy, timeliness, reliability, or otherwise. The views expressed in our publications are those of the contributors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher, nor of the contributors’ employers or organizations with which they are associated. Information on legal matters is intended as general guidance only; it is not comprehensive and does not constitute legal advice.

The WFSA aims to act as a conduit for information and where there are questions pursuant to matters raised here in the accompanying materials, the WFSA encourages interested parties to make contact with the authors.

5

Workshop Proceedings - Shooting Ranges: Lead Reclamation - Sound Attenuation - Backstop Construction

Table of Contents

Foreword ...............Đ 7

Introduction .........Đ 9

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 11

Agenda ................Đ 13

Proceedings .........Đ 15

List of participants ................................................................................................................. Appendix 1

Contributors’ biographies ..................................................................................................... Appendix 2

CD of Power Point presentations ..............................................................................(inside back cover)

Welcome – Opening Remarks

Why a Workshop on Lead Reclamation - Sound Attenuation - Backstop Construction? ................. 19Joachim Streitberger, Germany

Session 1: Backstops Construction

UK Ministry of Defence Development, Maintenance and Remediation of Stop Butts ....................... 25Frank Compton, UK

Stop Butts on Civilian Ranges ............................................................................................................. 47Bob Green, Australia

A sustainable solution for controlling lead emission from backstops ................................................. 53Jan Kjellberg, Sweden

Implementation of Environmental Best Management Practices on a Small Arms Training Range at Fort Jackson (USA) ................................................................... 59Kimberly Watts, Brooke E. Conway, Gene Fabian, USA

Best Management Practice Example ................................................................................................. 67Jörg Brokamp, Germany

Session 2: Lead Reclamation

Methods and Techniques for Collecting Lead – Latest Project Developments .................................. 77Stefano Bufi, Italy

Increasing the Recycling of Lead Ammunition ................................................................................... 83Dick Peddicord, USA

Lead Removal from Military Arms Firing Ranges – a Presentation of a Cleaning Project ................. 97Ulf Qvarfort, Sweden

Lead Reclamation and Clay Target Ranges in Germany ................................................................. 103Anton Schoenle, Germany

US Army Environmental Small Arms Range Sustainability Tests .................................................... 109Kimberly Watts, Brooke E. Conway, Gene Fabian and Greg Zynda, USA

Session 3: Sound Attenuation

Acoustic Characteristics and Environmental Impact of an Italian Shooting Range .........................119Giuseppe Forasassi, Italy

Shooting in a City, the Example of the Rose Range in Berlin ...........................................................131Helmuth Kinsky, Germany

6


Responses to Shooting Noise Problems in the UK .......................................................................... 145John Harradine, UK

An Approach for Sound Attenuation on Outdoor Rifle and Pistol Ranges ...................................... 155Friedrich Gepperth, Germany

Shooting More and Making Less Noise ............................................................................................ 165 Dietrich Kuehner, Germany

Sound, and How to Reduce Its Intensity Levels ................................................................................ 175 David A. Tomlinson, Canada

Session 4: The Way Forward – Closing Session

Workshop Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................. 185Joachim Streitberger, Germany

7


FOREWORD

Responsible care in the management of shooting ranges

Shooting ranges serve many important purposes. These vary from leisure time pursuits to preparing for Olympic competitions and to law enforcement personnel improving their skills to protect the public. Shooting ranges have also provided an important venue to learn and practise firearm safety.

From its beginning, the WFSA has been concerned with the relationship of shooting and the environment. An integral part of this concern is the actual environment on ranges, where so much shooting activity takes place.

There are a number of matters which are crucial to shooting ranges. Lead reclaiming, sound attenuation and backstop construction are important issues this workshop addressed.

The information collected during the workshop and enclosed in this report will allow us to formulate better strategies for managing safe and environmentally-compatible ranges. There are many exemplars here from which we can learn to improve range operating conditions.

This workshop is not intended to establish universal standards. Specific procedures will always vary from one jurisdiction to another. Regardless, there are important lessons that can benefit us all.

Substantial amounts of time and effort have been expended in preparation for this workshop. I want to thank both the organizing committee and the presenters. Their efforts in making it possible are to be commended.

Carlo Peroni President

9


INTRODUCTION

The WFSA

The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA) is an international association of over forty major hunting, sport shooting and firearms industry groups. It is chartered under Belgian law as an educational and scientific organization.

The WFSA is an official United Nations Non-Governmental Organization (roster status) and is the international voice for a hundred million hunters and sport shooters. The issues addressed by WFSA are of concern not only to its members, but to the larger world community.

11


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Workshop in Palermo – Experts Discuss Shooting Range Environments

An international symposium, entitled “Workshop on Shooting Ranges: Lead Reclamation, Sound Attenuation, Backstop Construction”, was held in Palermo, Italy on 2-3 October, 2007. It was organized and hosted by the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, a non-governmental organization composed of over 40 hunting, sport shooting and firearms and ammunition manufacturers’ associations. The 30 participants from nine countries included the world’s leading authorities on shooting range design and management.

Experts on the environmental conditions of shooting ranges made presentations related to lead management, sound attenuation and projectile containment. The meeting was given an overview of the latest technologies, innovations and developments in various countries.

Lead reclamation: the technologies are under continuing research. Independent studies in at least two countries, however, indicate reclaiming is not an effective management practice.

Sound attenuation: the presentations have shown that sound mitigation is possible. The new ISO Standards on Noise from Shooting Ranges were presented. They provide measurement protocol and predictive capabilities.

Backstop construction: backstops continue to provide extremely effective safety and bullet containment. Technological developments in this area are focusing on easier and more cost-effective environmental management.

Other pertinent facts were brought to the attention of the workshop, primarily that shooting ranges are site-specific and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Additionally, the importance of continuing maintenance was emphasized in many of the presentations.

At the end of the workshop the following conclusions were reached:

• The WFSA workshops on ranges proved again to be an invaluable tool for the exchange of the most recent science and information on these important topics;

• The issues discussed in the workshop are difficult and complex but progress is continuously being made;

• There is a continuing need to educate and inform governments and other regulatory authorities, as well as shooters and range operators, about shooting-range environmental issues and management practices.

For more information please contact:

WFSA Secretariat: Email [email protected] Phone +39 06 590 3510

Mauro Silvis: Email [email protected] Phone +39 335 784 2150

13


Workshop on Shooting Ranges

Lead Reclamation - Sound Attenuation - Backstop ConstructionGrand Hotel et Des Palmes, Room Wagner, Palermo, 2-3 October 2007

AGENDA

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

8:30 – 9:00 Registration

Welcome, opening remarks

9:00 – 9:10 Welcome Carlo Peroni, WFSA President

9:10 – 9:20 Why a Workshop on Backstop Construction - Lead Reclamation -Sound Attenuation? Joachim Streitberger, Germany

Session 1. Backstops

UK Ministry of Defence Development, Maintenance and Remediation of Stop Butts Frank Compton, UK

Stop Butts on Civilian Ranges Bob Green, Australia

A Sustainable Solution for Controlling Lead Emission from Backstops Jan Kjellberg, Sweden

10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break

Implementation of Environmental Best Management Practices on a Small Arms Training Range at Fort Jackson (USA) Kimberly Watts, Brooke E. Conway, Gene Fabian, USA

Best Management Practice Example Jörg Brokamp, Germany

OPEN DISCUSSION

Session 2. Lead reclamation

Methods and Techniques for Collecting Lead – Latest Project Developments Stefano Bufi, Italy

12:45 – 1:30 Lunch

Increasing the Recycling of Lead Ammunition Dick Peddicord, USA

14


Lead Removal from Military Arms Firing Ranges - a Presentation of a Cleaning Project Ulf Qvarfort, Sweden

Lead Reclamation and Clay Target Ranges in Germany Anton Schoenle, Germany

US Army Environmental Small Arms Range Sustainability Tests Kimberly Watts, Brooke E. Conway, Gene Fabian & Greg Zynda, USA OPEN DISCUSSION

Session 3. Sound attenuation

Acoustic Characteristics and Environmental Impact of an Italian Shooting Range Giuseppe Forasassi, Italy

Shooting in a City, the Example of the Rose Range in Berlin Helmuth Kinsky, Germany

Responses to Shooting Noise in the UK John Harradine, UK

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

9:00 Sound attenuation (contd.)

An Approach to Sound Attenuation on Outdoor Rifle and Pistol Ranges Friedrich Gepperth, Germany

Shooting More and Making Less Noise Dietrich Kuehner, Germany

Sound, and How to Reduce Its Intensity Levels David A. Tomlinson, Canada

OPEN DISCUSSION

10:15 – 10:30 Coffee Break

Session 4. The way forward - Closing session

10:40 – 11:30 Workshop Summary and Recommendation Joachim Streitberger, Germany

WORKSHOP OPEN DISCUSSION

11:30 Meeting Adjourns

12:00 Lunch

15


PROCEEDINGS

Welcome

Dr. Carlo Peroni, President of the WFSA, opened the Workshop at 9:00 a.m. on 2th October 2007 in the Grand Hotel Des Palmes, Palermo, Italy.

Remarks

Joachim Streitberger presented the reason for this workshop. He explained that in recent years, shooting organizations and regulators have been devoting quite some attention to hazards that can threaten health and safety on shooting ranges. The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities is proud of being proactive in addressing areas of concern in sport shooting, through its specific sub-committees. The European Commission has identified some environmental and safety risks with lead in the soil, and noise emission and bullet containment on shooting ranges are other matters also said to require attention. The aim of the workshop was to discuss the best way to handle these issues. It is a continuous learning process. Good management practices, together with improved technologies on lead reclamation, sound attenuation and backstop construction, will provide ranges with an environment where all expectations in terms of safety and environmental protection will be fully satisfied.

Session 1: Backstops Construction

Frank Compton from the UK made a presentation covering the various elements of backstops on ranges, including slope stability, backsplash, ricochet and lead contamination. Explanations of the various types of backstop used by the UK Ministry of Defence and others were presented, highlighting the benefits and issues with each type. The presentation gave an insight into future use of granulated rubber as a replacement for sand in backstops, and the concept of use of timber to help retain critical range slopes was presented. The issues and initiatives related to the maintenance of backstops were included throughout the presentation.

Bob Green presented a paper on behalf of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA). It has 120,000 members and operates more than 300 civilian shooting ranges for rifle, pistol and shotgun across Australia. For many years, the SSAA has monitored the various methods of construction of stop butts so the most appropriate construction design for all weather conditions can be achieved. Lead has always been one of the most practical and cost-effective materials for the production of projectiles within the shooting sports. The SSAA firmly believes that it can manage lead and its effect in the environment by choosing appropriate range sites and then properly constructing, maintaining and managing these sites. Mention was made of materials such as wood chips and shredded car tyres as means of stopping bullets. The paper asserted it is essential that science, industry and the shooting sports continue to work together to achieve this goal.

The next presentation, from Jan Kellberg of Sweden, presented by Torb Lindskog, outlined an environmentally-friendly and sustainable backstop solution patented by the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association (Pat. no. WO 2004/068060 A1). Building on the basic principle of preventing lead from breaking down through the creation of a pH-neutral environment in the backstop, the solution is inexpensive, easy to install and easy to maintain. By channelling, filtering and monitoring the wastewater from the backstop, it is possible to control for and prevent lead emissions into the surrounding environment. Favourable technical reviews of the patent have been made by Professor Emeritus Gunnar Jacks (the Royal Institute of Technology), Professor Sven Larson (Chalmers Institute of Technology) and Ulf Qvarfort (FOI, the Swedish Defence Research Agency). The cost for installation per shooting stand on rifle and pistol ranges is €500-1000, depending on fixed costs for technical equipment such as the liner and infiltration well. Yearly maintenance costs are estimated to lie between €10 and €50 per shooting stand, depending on range size and environmental conditions.

16


A paper prepared by a team of writers from the USA, Kimberley Watts, Brooke E. Conway and Gene Fabian, was then presented on their behalf by Jim Arnold. It examined principles laid out in the US Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices Manual, specifically as employed on one range in Florida. The procedure is for site assessment to be followed by field sampling, and then by the practical response according to need. The options for this are broad, because the conditions on individual ranges are so very different. The key areas of possible action include changes of vegetation, management of stormwater, erosion control, structural enhancements and soil amendments. The need for prevention of lead migration from sites, periodic lead removal and continuing evaluation of the effectiveness of the selected processes are also highlighted.

Jörg Brokamp from Germany gave the last paper in this session, a best-practice management example, on the preservation of old shotgun ranges for shooting sport activities with special care taken over environmental, legal and sporting aspects. This was shown by reference to the renovation and enlargement of the National Olympic Training Centre shotgun range (actually three ranges combined, belonging to the German Shooting Sport and Archery Federation in Wiesbaden, Germany.The following were emphasized:

- Water and soil protection- Control of lead shot dispersion- Reduction of shooting noise- Combined use of different models (both sport-shooting and hunting disciplines)- Strategic alliances (sport shooting and golf)

Session 2: Lead reclamation

Stefano Bufi opened the second session with a study on provision of optimum solutions for the interception and collection of lead pellets on clay-target ranges, in order to modify existing facilities and build new ones in compliance with environmental compatibility principles. Theoretical solutions have been assumed based on the current standards and regulations, a study of lead pellet ballistic characteristics, an evaluation of the techniques currently used for interception and collection, and analysis of the resistance of the materials. These solutions were compared with the most up-to-date experience in Italian facilities and then optimized further. A range of solutions was proposed, based on a combination of an embankment topped by a steel-wired net, with its height depending on the distance from the shooting platform. The collection systems consist of a confinement area and a collection area, the latter formed by a covering which enables the removal of the residual lead by mechanical means.

Dick Peddicord from the USA next gave a paper showing that the substantial increase in the amount of bullets and shot recycled from outdoor shooting ranges is important for environmental, political and public perception reasons. This paper examined the major economic factors of lead reclaiming and recycling: the scrap metal value of lead, the percentage of lead in the reclaimed material, recycler’s processing fee, the cost of reclamation and the cost of transportation to the recycling facility. Discussion focused on how these factors might be manipulated by cooperative actions of interested parties to reduce costs and thus increase the recycling of lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges. The factors that presently appear to be most amenable to positive influence are the cost of reclamation and the cost of transportation.

A paper from Ulf Qvarfort of Sweden, given on his behalf also by Torb Lindskog, next provided information on the way extensive work is being conducted in Sweden to investigate and remediate contaminated military arms ranges in connection with the closedown of military bases. The impact berms contain high concentrations of lead in the form of whole bullets, a wide distribution of free fragments, smeared lead on the surface of the soil grains and very finely attached particles. During the period 1990 to 2000, more than 100,000 tonnes of material was processed from different firing ranges. The remediation method used was soil washing and gravity beneficiation, a technique similar to that used by the mining industry. This method was sufficient to lower the final lead concentration to just below 1000 mg/kg DS. This level is, however, too high to allow the soil to pass the Swedish EPA criteria (300 mg/kg DS), and most of the soil was therefore bound for an industrial or municipal waste deposit.

17


Anton Schönle from Germany next gave a paper about reclamation on clay-target ranges. As the honorary head of a shooting stand, four years previously he had begun to develop a mobile installation for recycling lead shot. His goal was to find an efficient way for cleaning up the earth wall at a shooting stand which caught all the spent lead shot. The result was a mobile installation based on a wet-mechanical density separation process, as used in sluice boxes for recovering gold. In his presentation, he described in detail his developed installation, touching on details such as the need to construct a conveyor belt with depressions in it. In front of the conveyor belt was placed a hopper which can be hydraulically lifted in order to compensate the height difference between conveyor belt and hopper. The hopper spills the substrate on the conveyor belt which transports the separated lead into a collecting bin. There is hardly any abrasion. Finally, the remaining mixture of water and substrate is separated. The settling substances are transported to a heap and floating substances are siphoned off, drained and deposited on a different heap by means of a rake conveyor. Washing water is circulated by pump. Almost every source substrate can be processed with this installation. Stones of up to approximately 200 mm diameter are not a problem, and neither are grasses and their roots.

Next came a presentation also made by Jim Arnold on behalf of four writers, Kimberly Watts and Brooke E. Conway, Gene Fabian and Greg Zynda. The US Army has instituted testing of small arms range environmental management techniques to support training while also reducing the potential for off-range lead migration. With an overall view to increasing sustainability of particular shooting ranges, and using methodology on display in a US Army manual, tests were carried out on small arms shooting range best-practice concepts. This paper considered three specific means of dealing with unwanted metals on ranges. The first, the targeted removal of lead deposits by back-hoe, focused on high-bullet-density areas in shooting berms. Later testing of stormwater assessed the validity of the method. The second process involved the application of lime as a lead mitigation technique, with water runoff being tested afterwards. The third method involved a subsurface in-situ filtration system designed to take lead directly from the runoff water.

Session 3: Sound attenuation

The third session began with a presentation by Giuseppe Forasassi of Italy. This looked at the impact of a sport shooting range on the acoustic environment. The paper argued that ranges should be designed taking into account the regulations that are becoming ever more restrictive. It analysed some specific acoustic problems of an Italian shooting range, referring to possible design solutions and technical recommendations. The application in the design phase of an up-to-date calculation code was considered in simulation of the acoustic response of the facility, with reference to comparison of the design solutions’ efficiency. The results of such numerical simulation were compared with the experimental ones measured in some preliminary firing tests carried out on an existing shooting range.

A paper by Helmut Kinsky of Germany was next presented by Joachim Streitberger (both are Directors of DEVA, the German Testing and Proof Institute for Hunting and Sporting Firearms) on the old DEVA Shooting Range in Wannsee, part of the German capital, Berlin. This shooting range was created in 1928 as part of the Institute and it operated till the end of World War II. After the war it was taken by the American forces and used as a military shooting range. The commander-in-chief at this time was General Rose, and the range was named after him, “Rose Range”. As a result of protests from local residents living within a distance of 350 metres from the range, the American forces invested millions of Deutschmarks to reduce the sound levels, and the institute itself invested several hundred thousand Euros for further improvement of the sound attenuation. Shooting currently continues on 126 tracks, at 25, 50, 100 and 300 m. The Range is used by sport shooters, hunters and police forces. Thirty thousand rounds are fired per day without exceeding the allowed sound levels. The presentation showed the existing means and gave an overview of the effects and the costs of it.

John Harradine, BASC’s Head of Research, presented a paper about the UK response to the increase of problems over shooting noise. These are growing, partly as tolerance to noise in the countryside decreases and partly because the UK’s environmental legislation makes clay target and other shooting particularly vulnerable to complaints and the imposition of restrictive measures. A survey has been conducted of shooting grounds throughout the country to identify the nature of these problems and the measures used both to prevent noise problems from arising and to manage the grounds that are facing such problems. A review of the measures was presented.

18


The next paper, from Friedrich Gepperth of Germany, looked at the way the noise level of rifle and pistol ranges can be drastically reduced by means of a coffered ceiling construction consisting of wooden boards and mineral wool panels. Very often this can be achieved by local labour. The paper showed two basic approaches. The first is a shooting range with a fixed firing line – as with most of the traditional shooting disciplines and with silhouette shooting. Here the effect of the noise attenuation construction can be extremely high, with a reasonable investment. The second is a multiple-distance range with many different shooting positions, such as are necessary for IPSC shooting, PPC shooting, Bianchi Cup-style shooting and Cowboy Action shooting. Even here it is possible to reduce the shooting noise to a surprisingly low level but only by means of a very dense ceiling construction. This is expensive and the loss of natural light on the shooting range is considerable.

Dietrich H. Kuehner from Germany next made a presentation about the ISO Standardization of Shooting Noise (CEN / ISO Standard 17201). This makes the task of handling of shooting noise straightforward for engineers and officials with respect to its physical nature, to noise reduction possibilities and to the management of its impact. This standard describes how the limiting values expressed in decibels can be translated into a quota count limit, which gives the maximum number of shots fired by the loudest combination of firearm, ammunition and shooting position without surpassing the limiting values. The quota count of a combination is the product of the number of shots of this combination and a weighting factor, from a standardized calculation. Based on the usage of the range, expressed by the number of shots fired in the different combinations, this allows the calculation of the daily quota count and a subsequent comparison with the limit. There are different possible usages of the range, changing weather conditions, etc., and the method can be employed to ensure that noise impact in the neighborhood remains at a minimum.

Next came a paper presented posthumously by Gary Mauser on behalf of David Tomlinson of Canada. Many shooting ranges are closed down pursuant to complaints from people living somewhere nearby. Some of these complaints are supportable, while others can be shown by objective measurement to be about less than traffic noise. This paper addresses the deeper technical elements of the origins of sound from the operation of a firearm, and begins with the molecular motion it initiates. This is differentiated from the energy wave that discharge produces. The energy wave is shown to provide to the distant ear drum that stimulus which a human being recognizes as noise. Energy is capable of being absorbed. It is possible for people managing shooting ranges to take advantage of this fact, and of the further fact that the wave is always weakening, right from its point of origin at the muzzle of the firearm. The paper then goes on to look at possible strategies to reduce the sound levels perceived at the point of hearing.

Session 6: The Way Forward - Closing Session

Joachim Streitberger, Director of the German Federal Association of Shooting Ranges (BVS), Chairman of WFSA Environment Sub-Committee, presented a summary of the workshop. The assembly reviewed the summary and approved the recommendations without reservation.

19


Why a Workshop on Lead Reclamation, Sound Attenuation, Backstop Construction?

My name is Joachim Streitberger and I have the honour to be the chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee of the WFSA. Welcome to this third workshop hosted by WFSA and initiated by the Environment Sub-Committee. This workshop will again be dealing with questions and problems that are of importance for the whole world community of hunters and sport shooters.We first met in 2004 in Rome at the symposium entitled “Sustainable Use of Lead Ammunition”, where 140 experts from all over the world came together, to listen to 32 presentations. I hope you agree when I say that this symposium was a big success and had an impact on the way matters developed, especially in Europe.The second time, we met in 2005 in Rome at a workshop called “Responsible Care of the Range Environment”, dealing with the special problems of indoor shooting ranges. It was a great pleasure for me to hear several experts saying after the event: “I came here to give my expertise, to show what we know and did, but I have to say that I’m taking a lot more expertise home with me now as I leave”. I think this is the best compliment what we can get; this was the aim we had. We wanted to share the information we have, information on problems and how to solve them – to share the different approaches and the solutions we found. Now, we’re here for the third workshop. We want to go further into the detail, the area in which – to quote a German saying – the “devil is sticking”.Sound attenuation, construction of backstops, reclamation: three topics – three important questions that we have to answer, if we want to win a future for ourselves.I want to give you one example; you will hear more details of it in this workshop. After a change in the German legislation in 2005, it was no longer possible to dispose of material from backstops without separating out the components singly – in this case, sand and metal. This meant we had to wash the soil-and-sand mixture of the backstops before we could dispose of any of these materials. In the year 2005, we had to clean 22 m of backstops on our range in Berlin – costing several tens of thousands of Euros. In 2007 we cleaned 100 m of backstops with the new procedure, shown by Mr. Schoenle, and now we are hoping that this time the cleaning will be about the same cost as the proceeds of the lead which is to be sold afterwards. That means the costs for the range are almost zero. What a difference. Remediation – on backstops as well as on clay target ranges – is the basic challenge. I am deeply convinced that we have to reclaim the spent lead if we want to go on with the use of lead as part of the ammunition we use. On the other hand, noise – or, if we want to be more politically correct, sound – is the biggest threat, often lethal enough in its own right to shooting ranges.There are things to be done to improve matters on both clay target ranges and on rifle ranges. We should share our knowledge in this workshop, to help shooting ranges to carry on.Let me make a final remark: in my opinion, the biggest threat for our ranges is the structure within which they are managed. Shooting ranges are experienced by their patrons in leisure time, and – especially in registered associations – this is also the way in which they are operated. So, with a background seen at the user end as being leisure-related, at the other end, the authorities are not seeing our ranges that way. The authorities view our ranges as enterprises, and even more problematic, as enterprises that are a hazard for the environment, and which should be forced to cope with a huge superstructure of environmental legislation. Range operators who all too often are not able to cope with safety and organizational requirements on a range are suddenly forced to take care of aspects in several other fields if they want to protect their ranges. New housing areas are being planned next to ranges, nature preserves are getting closer – these are the kinds of changes that have to be taken into account by the operators, as well as the other issues that we are dealing with today. In my opinion it is most important to bring knowledge and expertise to the roots of our associations – in other words, to the range operators. Accordingly, one big aspect of this workshop is to make all the findings available for shooting range operators, and I want to thank the Executive Committee of the WFSA for taking the burden of financing the printing of these proceedings.

20


Finally, I have to give my warm thanks to Dr. Vito Genco, Dr. Mauro Silvis and Dr. Pietro Pietrafesa for the preparation of this workshop.I know all of us are under enormous pressure and occupied with dates and tasks to fulfil. That’s why we have problems to keep in step with dates, to send presentations, to send papers, even to send back the participation form. As Dr. Genco remarked, it was more difficult to get the information this time than for the big symposium in Rome in 2004. These difficulties double the amount of work that is normally allied with the preparation of a workshop like this one. Thank you, gentlemen, for your patience and for your persistence, and thanks to ANPAM for all the support we have been given in recent years to make these workshops happen.Let me end with the words that I used in 2005 in Rome, at the beginning of the workshop on indoor shooting ranges. They are still applicable and appropriate:“That is why we are here, to learn from experts, to discuss solutions and to make plans that will drive shooting towards a safe and prosperous future.”I hope that this workshop will fulfil expectations to the same extent as the previous two in Rome have, and I’m looking forward to your presentations.

Session 1

BackstopConstruction

UK MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE AND

REMEDIATION OF STOP BUTTS

Major (Retired) Frank Compton, UK

Officer Commanding The Technical Advisory Section Royal Engineers (UK Range Design Authority)

25

Session 1. Workshop Proceedings - Backstop Construction

UK Ministry of Defence Development, Maintenance and Remediation of Stop Butts

Major (Retired) Frank Compton Officer Commanding The Technical Advisory Section Royal Engineers (UK Range Design Authority)

Abstract

The presentation covers the various elements of backstops on ranges, including slope stability, backsplash, ricochet and lead contamination. Explanations of the various types of backstop used by the UK Ministry of Defence and others are presented, highlighting the benefits and issues with each type. There is an insight into future use of granulated rubber as a replacement for sand in backstops, and the concept of using timber to help retain critical range slopes is presented. The issues and initiatives related to the maintenance of backstops are included throughout the presentation.

1. Introduction

Stop butts are provided to capture aimed direct-shot and low-angle ricochets. They also allow the firer and coach to observe the fall of shot. Sand or granulated rubber bullet catchers may also be incorporated into the stop butt behind the target positions for ease of maintenance.

Stop butts on Wimbledon Common, circa 1864

26


There are two situations in which a stop butt may be used, a danger area range such as Gallery Ranges (GR) where some direct shot or ricochet is expected to pass over the stop butt, and a No Danger Area (NDA) range where all shot and ricochet is captured. A stop butt is not always needed if a Weapon Danger Area (WDA) is available. A reduced stop butt is, however, still useful to observe fall of shot and it will capture the bulk of shot fired, enabling recovery of the lead.

2. General principles

2.1 Conduct and Training A range is designed and built only for qualified and authorized personnel with arms authorized for use on the range, under proper supervision and in accordance with range orders.

2.2 Population Density In planning, designers must consider population density and public sensitivity around a proposed range before determining location and orientation.

2.3 Siting Preferences Outdoor ranges should be oriented facing north (in the Northern Hemisphere) so that firers do not engage targets into direct sunlight. The range should also be situated as far as possible from habitation as it is difficult to reduce impulse noise generated without modification to the firearm. When siting ranges, aligning the direction of fire away from habitation where possible should take precedence. The total energy template should be considered when assessing population and habitation in the area of the proposed new range.

2.4 Design - essential data For all range design the following principles need to be established in order to determine the extent of range structures required. Muzzle energy and velocity of firearms to be used will determine penetration, backsplash and ricochet potential: see Table 1. Regarding accuracy of shooting expected (Cone of Fire [CofF]) see Table 2 below.

Ser Firearm Type Indoor Open

MV(m/s) ME (J) MV(m/s) ME (J)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

1 Air rifle N/A 16 (12ft/lbs) N/A 16 (12ft/lbs)

2 Rimfire arm only

530 (1735ft/sec) 285 (210ft/lbs) 610 (2000ft/sec) 480 (350ft/lbs)

3 Centrefire pistol and carbine

(low velocity)

520 (1705ft/sec) 645 (475ft/lbs) 655 (2145ft/sec) 2030 (1495ft/lbs)

4 Centrefire rifle(high velocity)

1000 (3280ft/sec)

7000 (5160ft/lbs) 1000 (3280ft/sec)

7000 (5160ft/lbs)

Table 1 - SA Ammunition Maximum MV and ME Limitations

27


Ser Practice Engagement Type CofF

SS = Single ShotA = Automatic

Azimuth (mils)1

Elevation (mils)1

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

1 Rifle and Carbine, Static to Static SSA

±40±40

± 40± 40

2 Static to Moving SSA

±60± 90

±40±40

3 Pistol – target shooting SS/A ± 135 ±135

4 Practical Pistol SS ±250 ±190

5 Target shooting, rifle and carbine, supported only, Static to Static

SS ± 21.5 ± 21.5

6 Target shooting, rifle and carbine, supported only, Static to Moving

SS ± 40 ± 21.5

Table 2 - SA Cones of Fire applied on MoD ranges

Note 1. Military Measurement: The angle of military measurement is a mil (1/6400th of a circle) which subtends approximately 1 mm at 1 m and 1 m at 1 km. This simple unit of measurement aids setting out and estimating angles and distances in the field. 21.5mils = 1.20, 40mils = 2.250, 60mils = 3.380, 90mils = 50, 135mils = 7.50, 190mils = 10.690, 250mils = 140

2.5 Ricochet Ricochet is the change of direction and velocity induced in a projectile, missile or fragment caused by its impact with a surface. For design purposes, ricochet is generally taken as 300 off soft targets and 450 off hard surfaces in elevation and azimuth for high velocity ammunition. For low velocity ammunition the ricochet angles are taken as 150 off ground and 450 off hard surfaces.

2.6 Backsplash Backsplash is fragmentation or target debris thrown backwards at any angle produced by projectile impact. UK MoD uses the data in Table 3 below.

Ser Firearm Fragment or Earth Throw Distance

Hard Tgt (m)

Fragment or Earth Throw Distance Ground Tgt (m)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

1 Rimfire, centrefire pistol and carbine 22 10

2 Centrefire rifle 50 22

3 7.62 mm tracer 125 125

Table 3 - Backsplash Zone (Safety Distances)

2.7 Hidden Attrition Where steel, concrete, blocks or brickwork are used to provide range structures they are normally protected with antisplash curtains or timber to prevent backsplash. These surfaces that are out of sight are prone to hidden attrition and must be inspected regularly where there is repeated bullet strike.

28


Steel penetrated Brickwork bullet damage

Reinforced concrete damaged by bullets

3. Stop Butts on Gallery-Type Ranges

3.1 General Description Gallery Ranges (GR) are designed with a limited danger area based on an elevated target line that reduces the occurrence of ground ricochet. These ranges had originally only gallery frame targets but more often today they have a combination of gallery and electric targets. The ranges with electric targets are termed Converted Gallery Ranges (CGR). The UK CGRs in most cases have retained the gallery targets as well. New gallery ranges will be constructed without gallery targets. These ranges are called Electric Target (Limited Danger Area) Ranges (ET(LDA)R.

3.2 Location The stop butt is located behind the targets and it will normally be at right angles to the range centre line but a maximum deviation of 100 is permitted. On Gallery Ranges (GR) it should not be less than 25 m from the gallery target line to prevent backsplash into the gallery. The space can also be used for shooting at 25 m provided the stop butt meets the criteria in this document and there is sufficient land beyond the range flanks for the pistol danger area. In this case provision for targetry at the base of the stop butt may be considered. On GR where the stop butt is less than 25 m provision such as a timber barrier must be made to prevent backsplash into the gallery.

29


Illustration of a typical timber anti-backsplash barrier on a CGR

3.3 Structure The stop butt is a bank normally constructed from stone-free soil. It may have a rock core faced with a minimum of 1.5 m of compacted soil free from large stones (>30 mm in any dimension). Measures to reinforce stop butts to take account of torrential rain should be used particularly where stop butts are constructed entirely of sand. Timber framing or geo-grid around shooting in boxes has proved to provide a successful solution.

Illustration of GR sand stop butt failures

3.4 Height On gallery ranges the height of the stop butt is determined by setting a boning rod on top of the mantlet, and, when viewed from the prone position at the 100m firing point, the crest of the stop butt should not appear lower than the boning rod, along the whole length of the stop butt. See Annex A which illustrates the principle based on UK MoD expected cone of fire of 2.250. For civilian target shooting clubs a much smaller cone of fire would be appropriate.

3.5 Crest Length and Width The length of the stop butt crest is determined when a horizontal angle of 60 mils1 (3.400) applied to each worst case flank Line of Sight (LofS) on the 100m firing point meets the line of the stop butt crest as shown in Annex A. The stop butt must be level across the crest and not less than 1.5 m wide over the full length to allow access for maintenance.

3.6 Profile The face profile of the stop butt is constructed and maintained at an angle of 600mils (340) to the horizontal. This ensures the minimum bullet impact angle of 533 mils (300) is achieved, which is the angle required to minimize ricochet. The rear of the stop butt and

30


its ends should be constructed at the natural angle of repose for the soil type. Stability can be improved with geotextiles, geogrids or a combination of the two, and the surface should be seeded to assist stability. If drainage or soil types make these slopes impracticable, the face of the stop butt may be terraced. The design of a terraced stop butt must avoid terrace steps in the main impact area behind the targets.

3.7 Bullet Catcher or Material Boxes A sand or granulated rubber bullet catcher may be formed on the face of the stop butt. With sand, this will help with identifying the fall of shot, and with either it will simplify de-leading. An area behind the target is excavated to 500 mm deep and filled with coarse sand or granulated rubber. To assist in maintaining the profile, these boxes may be constructed of timber and set into the stop butt. The height and width of the box is to be such that when a 1.22m2 target is installed, at least 0.3 m of material all around it is visible to the firer from the 100 m firing point. Granulated rubber should not be placed over the whole stop butt because of the fire risk. It is easier to control a fire in smaller shooting boxes. A light rubber sheet or shredded rubber tiles may be used to stop granulate jumping out of the boxes following bullet strike. This also helps prevent grass from grass cutters and other debris getting into the granulate.

3.8 Flag Poles and Lights A flag pole 6-9m high manufactured from non-ricochet inducing material such as timber, hollow aluminium or penetrable composite material is mounted at one end of the stop butt and on it a 1.8m2 red range-in-use flag is flown. If the range is authorized for night firing, a red warning light is mounted on top of the pole.

3.9 Lane Numbers Lane numbers constructed of timber and external grade plywood are positioned at the foot of the mantlet. The lane numbers are to be 1 m high and painted black in silhouette, or as white numbers on a 1.2 m-high black background. On ranges in excess of 600 m, the height of the numbers should be increased to 1.4 m. For night firing or falling plate practice, the lane numbers must be removable.

3.10 Terracing Where ranges are constructed on sloping ground such as the side of a hill it may be necessary to terrace the gallery and stop butt.

a. Hill Stop Butts Engineering considerations may make it necessary to terrace a stop butt, such as when a hill is used. Each terrace must be cut with a face angle of 340 and the top of the terrace sloped back from the face at 4.80 (1:12). Terraces may be wide enough to accept a small excavator but the possibility of ricochet from the edge will limit the depth of each terrace to ensure capture of the round by the terrace above. The layout of terracing must be planned using established ricochet data. Terraces should be constructed to avoid the main area of impact behind the targets.

b. Stop Butt and Mantlet Cross-fall When a cross-fall exceeds 2.30 (1:25), it will be necessary to form a step or steps in the length of the stop butt and mantlet. The slope should be formed at the natural angle of repose for the soil and the resulting horizontal slope length added between lanes. To meet the minimum crest width, lower levels will have an increased crest width to avoid a change in the face angle. A step in the stop butt must be offset from the step in the mantlet to cover the flank angle distance (60 mils [3.40]) from the LofS at the 100m firing point.

31


Stepped mantlet

4. No Danger Area Range Stop Butts and Bullet Catchers

4.1 General Description.

a. Bullet Catcher The bullet catcher is the area directly behind the target position which is subject to constant attrition; its purpose is to continually stop bullets in free flight and low ricochet while providing a structure which is easily maintained and cost effective. Sand is currently the most common material used for bullet catchers although granulated rubber provides in the long term a far more cost effective bullet catcher.

b. Stop Butt The stop butt is the area extending above and to the sides of the bullet catcher and should be subjected to lesser concentrations of fire. Its purpose is to stop direct shot in free flight within maximum predicted aimer deviation margins and ricochet from the predicted first point of impact. Where banks form the stop butt the minimum slope of 560 is required to prevent subsequent ricochet.

4.2 Design Principles

a. Bullet Catcher The bullet catcher size requirements can be established by application of a parallel distance and an associated angle to the worst-case Lines of Fire (LofF) in Table 4.

b. Stop Butts (Back Walls) The required height and width of stop butt for a specific range can be determined by applying relevant cones of fire, ricochet allowances and existing range criteria. Application of all these elements is necessary as in some circumstances the calculations for cone of fire and ricochet may result in smaller stop butt dimensional requirements than needed using previous NDA criteria. As a reduction in the level of safety cannot be accepted, the criteria for existing ranges are also applied and whichever is the greater is to be adopted. Design using existing range criteria is illustrated at Annex B.

Outdoor ranges (existing range criteria)

1 Bullet catcher,Outdoor

Vertical (mils + mm) Horizontal (mils + mm)

3 + 700

3 + 450

6 + 850

6 + 600

6 + 1500

6 + 1400

1 + 1700

3 + 1400

2 Stop butt criteria

Vertical (mils + mm) Horizontal (mils + mm)

20 + 2500

30 + 1000

60 + 3500

60 + 2000

60 + 4000

60 + 4300

77 + 4700

60 + 4000

Table 4 - Defence Structure Dimensions

32


4.4 Design using Cones of Fire (CofF) The CofF are applied to all Lines of Fire to determine the extent of direct fi re and predicted initial points of impact on the range fl oor. The stop butt should be sized and positioned to capture all predicted direct shot and ricochet from the range fl oor. CofF used by UK MoD are provided in Table 2. An illustration of the process is at Annex C.

4.5 Construction For No Danger Area (NDA) ranges there are several engineering solutions that can provide effective stop butts including natural banks, stepped butts, geo wrap and gabion basket systems.

Example of a stepped stop butt

Gabion structure Geo wrap system

4.6 Bullet Catcher The bullet catcher should be positioned immediately behind the targets to achieve its function; the distance may vary although a distance of 1000 mm from target line to bullet catcher toe-board provides suffi cient space for access to targetry. As the distance from target to toe-board increases, the defensive structure requirements become greater.

a. Profi le Provided the profi le is maintained, the majority of bullets should be contained within the catcher. The exception is some high velocity rounds which have a tendency to ‘pop-over’ – see below.

b. Canopy Where high velocity centrefi re rifl e ammunition is to be used, an anti-ricochet or ‘pop-over’ canopy is required to prevent vertical ricochet from the bullet catcher sand leaving the range. The canopy is positioned to cover the full width of the bullet catcher and at least the rear half of the catcher as this is the area where vertical ricochet is most likely. The canopy is to be impenetrable to ricochet with typical construction being a timber roof with 5 mm minimum thick steel lining to the underside, although other materials may be considered acceptable. Where high velocity centrefi re rifl e ammunition is to be used without a canopy above the bullet catcher, a 100 m radius danger area is required to the sides and rear of the range (measured from the fl ank target positions at sides and stop butt for extent of the danger area to the rear).

33


4.7 Stop Butt Typical construction used for stop butts includes vertical walls, natural earth embankments, manufactured bunds and cutting into natural hill features. The slope angle for an earth embankment stop butt is 560 from the horizontal which is traditionally accepted as the angle that eliminates ricochet. Table 5 indicates the recommended thickness and type of materials often used in the construction of stop butts. Other solutions may also be possible.

a. Positioning The stop butt should be positioned as close to the target line as practicable. As the distance from the target line to the crest increases, the stop butt height and width requirement becomes greater to enable capture of all predicted shot.

b. Protection Where a vertical wall is used for centrefire rifle stop butt construction, the area visible above the sand and within the canopy is liable to receive strike fairly regularly; and additional protection shall be provided to the front face. This is particularly important where the wall is near the backsplash distance.

(1) Concrete Where reinforced concrete is used, timber may be used for anti-splash protection. Great care is needed to avoid creating potential areas of unseen structural damage. For example, bullets may produce only small holes and timber cladding can appear undamaged on the surface, while severe unseen spalling occurs behind, in hidden attrition. In such cases the cladding should be fixed so that it can be easily and regularly removed to monitor vulnerable areas.

(2) Brickwork. Where brickwork is used, the protection may be provided by using a sacrificial render coat 1:4 mix 20 mm thick. This shows strike immediately, alerting range users to incorrect target positioning or other potential problem areas, and eases maintenance by reducing damage to the brickwork and enabling replacement of the render when necessary.

Arm and Ammunition Type Material Type

Vertical Wall Earth Embankment Notes 4 & 5Concrete

Note 1Brickwork

Note 2Blockwork

Note 3

Rimfire rifle & pistol 75 102.5 100 1000

Centrefire pistol & carbine 150 215 215 1000

Centrefire rifle 200 215 215 1500

Table 5 - Stop Butt Material Requirements for NDA Ranges Notes

1. Concrete - 20N/mm2 20mm aggregate suitably reinforced.

2. Brickwork - solid, void-free engineering-quality bricks.

3. Blockwork - solid, dense aggregate blocks with a minimum compressive strength of 10 N/mm2 and a minimum density of 1500 kg/m3.

4. Earth embankment to be suitably compacted stone-free soil incorporating geo-textile reinforcement where appropriate.

5. The thickness indicated refers to the crest, where there is no additional protection or support behind. If a bank of greater thickness is faced with stone-free earth, it may be possible to reduce this dimension depending on expected ammunition usage and likely depth of penetration.

34


5. Sand bullet catchers

5.1 General Sand has been generally used in bullet catchers and stop butts on many ranges. This section specifies the quality of the sand, its profile and the maintenance that is necessary to capture shot without causing ricochet or backsplash.

5.2 Quality It is recommended that sand should conform to the specifications: BS EN 12620: 2002 description “0/4 Concrete Sand”. Grading should conform to BSI PD 6682-1 Table D1, “0/4 Concrete Sand CP” with angular shape for slope stability and sound physical properties to resist natural breakdown. This grade is fine enough not to cause ricochet yet coarse enough to retain the required profile effectively without likelihood of setting or forming a surface crust; in addition it is relatively stable in high winds. This specification also provides for a material that will not readily break down naturally. Such material should not crush to fine dust when rubbed between the hands. Over time, bullets pounding the sand reduce it to fine dust behind the Mean Point of Impact (MPI), and at this point the sand will need to be replaced.

5.3 Construction The core of the bullet catcher or stop butt may be constructed of any stable filling material. However, the surface is to be covered by sand as specified in the relevant Chapter for the range. Generally the depth of sand is related to the type of firearm in use. For high velocity (HV) arms (see Table 1), the minimum depth measured on a line parallel to the LofS should be 900 mm on NDA ranges and 500 mm on other ranges. For low velocity (LV) arms the minimum depth should be 500 mm. The depth measured perpendicular to slope of 340 is, for HV 500 mm and for LV 280 mm.

5.4 Profile 340 (600 mils) is the recommended slope for the front face of the bullet catcher in order to reduce the risk of ricochet. The continual impact of rounds or the natural settlement of the sand may reduce the slope, which must never be allowed to fall below 300 (530 mils); as this may cause ricochet to leave the Range Danger Area.

5.5 Maintenance Regular maintenance of the sand is essential to the range remaining safe for use. There are several factors to be considered and these are described below. Renewal or replacement of the sand may be achieved by rotating the sand in situ or by replacing it with sand from another section of the bullet catcher. The following measures are particularly important.

a. Profile Sand in the bullet catcher is to be raked to prevent tunnelling at the MPI behind targets to keep the surface of the sand in a loose state and to restore the profile to the 340 slope.

35


b. De-Leading.

(1) 7.62 mm When large quantities of 7.62 mm rounds are fired or there are excessive quantities of jacket and bullet debris, balls of lead and other hazardous debris build up in the sand. The bullets tend to remain intact after embedding in the sand and can fuse together into a ball, which often occurs below the surface of the sand at the MPI behind the target after about 20,000 rounds have been fired in a lane. When subsequent bullets striking the ball no longer drive it deeper into the sand, backsplash and ricochet become hazards. So it is important that any such build-up of lead is removed before the hazards arise.

(2) 5.56 mm This round tends to break up on impact at close range, causing debris which is often smaller than the sand particles in the bullet catcher. In this case, the sand cannot always be sieved without altering its stability. Provided the lead particles and debris are small and well spread over the area behind the MPI, the sand will remain stable and the probability of ricochet or backsplash will remain low. It is prudent to rotate the sand to ensure that the smaller particles are well spread. If there is any sign of lead balling and debris building up to the extent that a backsplash hazard is perceived, the sand is to be treated as described in sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) Other ammunition natures When other ammunition natures have been fired (such as 9 mm, black powder ball or bullet, shotgun slugs etc), the sand is to be monitored regularly to ensure lead does not build up around the MPI. As a guide, the sand should be checked for lead build-up when the slope is raked after heavy use to restore its profile. For a range that is only used occasionally, the sand should be checked monthly or after 20,000 rounds have been fired on a lane, whichever occurs first.

c. Weathering In time, continuous impact by shot will break the sand down to a fine powder which will blow away in the wind or bake hard in the sun. Fine sand will also cause the slope to lose its stability. When this occurs, which will be evident by inspection, the sand will no longer be of the prescribed grade and should be replaced. The following additives and reinforcements have been found useful in maintaining the shape of the sand:

(1) Wood shavings or chips A mixture of wood shavings or chips in proportions by volume of about 2:1 sand to wood helps retain moisture and stability of the mass in sand under canopies. The wood will itself break down in time and more will need to be mixed in.

(2) Salt Adding 1-2% of salt by dry weight of sand also helps retain moisture in the sand and will reduce the danger of freezing in winter.

(3) Netting Mesh netting or geogrid may be used to reinforce the face angle. The mesh is placed just below the surface of the sand and is held in place with wooden pegs. Light galvanized wire mesh may also be used as it is effective against burrowing rabbits.

(4) Timber support Timber supports in the form of boxes or herringbone within the sand clear of the MPI can assist the retention of the sand profile.

d. Cleaning Sand bullet catchers should be checked monthly or after 20,000 rounds have been fired on a lane to ensure there is no build-up of lead which can generate a backsplash hazard. Rotation of the sand within the bullet catcher may prolong the life of the sand. The sand should be replaced when the maintenance of the 340 face becomes difficult. The

36


hazard of lead contamination has to be considered. The range staff are responsible for:

(1) Observing the requirements of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations;

(2) The safety of working practices;

(3) Providing the appropriate personal protective clothing and, when necessary, respiratory protective equipment;

(4) Providing washing and changing areas which avoid cross-contamination of clothing;

(5) Disposing of sand, soil and debris, which might contain or be contaminated by lead, as contaminated waste in accordance with the Local Authority Environmental Control Department’s instructions and MoD Policy.

e. Black powder firearms On ranges where firing black powder arms is permitted, particular care is to be taken to avoid lead building up in the stop butt and mantlet.

6. Granulated rubber bullet catchers

Granulate on a NDA range Granulate on a Gallery range

6.1 Material description The granulated rubber should be used in the same form as sand traps, 340 slope with profile line marked on range side walls. The rubber elements are shredded from rubber that has no steel or fabric reinforcement. The rubber used must be fire-resistant.

a. Shape Shredded rubber should have elongated elements removed to produce angular rubber fragments of regular shape, approximately 10–25 mm in any direction, producing tight interlock properties.

b. Durability The rubber material will not break down in the short term, having a life expectancy of about three years with medium use, and much longer with the normal rate of fire on MoD ranges.

c. De-leading The material should take up to 35,000 rounds per lane before inspection is required to ensure there is no build-up of lead behind the MPI. Frequent prodding of the area behind the MPI will extend the interval for de-leading. On ranges where black powder arms are fired, more frequent de-leading may be necessary. Contractors involved in de-leading are to ensure all bullet debris and bullets are removed from the granulate.

d. Fire resistance The material is fire resistant but there are some circumstances where the rubber may be ignited, particularly when tracer is used. The rate of burn is slow and allows plenty of time for range staff to extinguish the flame before it moves to adjacent rubber fragments. Where tracer is used on ranges with granulated rubber, Class A water

37


extinguishers are to be provided. A light rubber sheet placed over the granulate will prevent contamination of the granulate from timber and paper debris thrown out from targets. On ranges where engagement closer than 10 m is permitted, a rubber sheet over the granulate is essential to prevent unburnt propellant falling into the granulate and increasing the risk of fire.

e. Stability Because of the interlock properties the 340 slope should be maintained throughout many days of use without raking. Only with a high rate of fire on one lane will a depression become apparent behind the MPI.

f. Frost resistance The material may be used outside during frost conditions without any change in performance.

g. Washout resistance The material allows water to pass through it without disruption of the slope.

6.2 Environmental Impact Rounds are captured either intact or in constituent parts. Lead dust is not generated in the trap to the same degree as in a sand trap. The rubber granulate should not break up into fine dust like sand so there is no particulate thrown into the air during firing or maintenance of the trap. As with sand, there is no impact noise. The granulate may be recycled many times on site to remove spent bullets, after which it is then placed back into the trap.

6.3 Maintenance As the material has good interlocking properties so the compliant slope is maintained without slip at the MPI. This will reduce the maintenance effort considerably. As there is little or no lead dust, any maintenance of the trap will not expose range staff to significant lead in the air. The material will not break down so readily as sand so replacement or rotation of the trap will not be so necessary. Rabbits do not like tunnelling in this material. The supplier is able to provide a de-leading or replacement service using a recycling process on site. To ensure granulate is not contaminated by wood and paper debris from targets on barrack ranges, it is advisable to provide a light rubber sheet covering the granulate. Regular and effective maintenance as recommended by the supplier is essential as rubber dust generated at the MPI mixed with bullet and target debris will increase the risk of fire.

38


6.4 Potential Use This material may be used in outdoor ranges or indoors. When used on gallery type ranges it should be in boxes fitted into the stop butt to minimize costs and reduce the area affected should there be a fire. Complete bullet catchers on barrack ranges may be converted to this material. No additional works are required except to retain the material at the base of the bullet catcher. This material is suitable for indoor ranges including test facilities and tube ranges. It will reduce considerably the amount of lead dust in the range. Some German and US ranges used the material sandwiched between rigid plastic sheets in the vertical form. These have proved very expensive to maintain because of the need to dismantle the trap when the supporting sheets are shot out at the MPI. However, when it is used in box form, most of the lead is collected in a removable trap that can be taken away for the recovery of lead.

Expensive but effective & Effective but long term cost is high. efficient bullet trap system.

6.5 Depth of Granulate The granulate will stop 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rounds within 300-400 mm. The minimum recommended depth perpendicular to the surface in use for all ranges will be 500 mm. The depth of the granulate in line with the line of fire at the top of the trap is 900 mm to 1000 mm.

6.6 Disposal After extended (3-5 years) or high intensity use the material at the MPI may need to be replaced. This material may be recycled by the supplier. At no time should the granulate as a whole need to be removed for disposal as the regular maintenance will remove and replace broken down granulate.

7. REMEDIATION

7.1 A well designed stop butt with bullet catchers should never need total remediation. By installing bullet catchers that can be easily de-leaded into a stop butt it will be many years before remediation may be needed.

7.2 Stop butts that are already full of lead debris and are showing signs of lead leaching in areas where there are pathways and receptors may be treated as researched by US Corps of Engineers with an additive to limit the leaching effect as illustrated below.

39


Full remediation involves lifting the whole stop butt and processing it through filter and washing processes. It is an expensive and time-consuming process that can be avoided by incorporating bullet catchers in the stop butt.

ANNEX A

UK MoD Stop Butt Construction

ANNEX B-1

UK MoD Stop Butt Construction– NDA Range Design Using Existing Range Criteria

Stop butt height design process

ANNEX B-2


Stop butt flank design process

ANNEX C


Cone of Fire Design Process

ANNEX D

Conversion ChartMills to Degrees / Degrees to Mills

Mills Deg Mills Deg Mills Deg Mills Deg5 0.28 110 6.19 310 17.44 510 28.69

10 0.56 120 6.75 320 18.00 520 29.2515 0.84 130 7.31 330 18.56 530 29.8120 1.13 140 7.88 340 19.13 540 30.3825 1.41 150 8.44 350 19.69 550 30.9430 1.69 160 9.00 360 20.25 560 31.5035 1.97 170 9.56 370 20.81 570 32.0640 2.25 180 10.13 380 21.38 580 32.6345 2.53 190 10.69 390 21.94 590 33.1950 2.81 200 11.25 400 22.50 600 33.7555 3.09 210 11.81 410 23.06 610 34.3160 3.38 220 12.38 420 23.63 620 34.8865 3.66 230 12.94 430 24.19 630 35.4470 3.94 240 13.50 440 24.75 640 36.0075 4.22 250 14.06 450 25.31 650 36.5680 4.50 260 14.63 460 25.88 660 37.1385 4.78 270 15.19 470 26.44 670 37.6990 5.06 280 15.75 480 27.00 680 38.2595 5.34 290 16.31 490

Deg Mills Deg Mills Deg Mills Deg Mills1 17.78 11 195.56 21 373.33 31 551.11

1.5 26.67 11.5 204.44 21.5 382.22 31.5 560.002 35.56 12 213.33 22 391.11 32 568.89

2.5 44.44 12.5 222.22 22.5 400.00 32.5 577.783 53.33 13 231.11 23 408.89 33 586.67

3.5 62.22 13.5 240.00 23.5 417.78 33.5 595.564 71.11 14 248.89 24 426.67 34 604.44

4.5 80.00 14.5 257.78 24.5 435.56 34.5 613.335 88.89 15 266.67 25 444.44 35 622.22

5.5 97.78 15.5 275.56 25.5 453.33 35.5 631.116 106.67 16 284.44 26 462.22 36 640.00

6.5 115.56 16.5 293.33 26.5 471.11 36.5 648.897 124.44 17 302.22 27 480.00 37 657.78

7.5 133.33 17.5 311.11 27.5 488.89 37.5 666.678 142.22 18 320.00 28 497.78 38 675.56

8.5 151.11 18.5 328.89 28.5 506.67 38.5 684.449 160.00 19 337.78 29 515.56 39 693.33

9.5 168.89 19.5 346.67 29.5 524.44 39.5 702.2210 177.78 20 355.56 30 533.33 40 711.11

STOP BUTTS ON CIVILIAN RANGES

Bob Green, Australia

President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA)

47


Stop Butts on Civilian Ranges

Bob Green, AustraliaPresident of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA)

Abstract

The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA) has 120,000 members and operates more than 300 civilian shooting ranges for rifle, pistol and shotgun across Australia. For many years, the SSAA has monitored the various methods of construction of stop butts so the most appropriate construction design for all weather conditions can be achieved.

The SSAA is led by experienced and practical people involved in testing programs concerning water run-off, domestic livestock and native fauna in areas that are shot over. Lead has always been one of the most practical and cost-effective material for the production of projectiles within the shooting sports. The SSAA is of firm belief that it can manage lead and its effect in the environment, by choosing appropriate range sites and the proper construction, maintenance and management of these sites. It is essential that science, industry and shooting sports continue to work together to achieve this goal.

During the 1800s, shooting range designs were changed for various reasons. The main one was the development of modern centrefire cartridges. With the adoption of these cartridges by many different countries there was an increase in the development of properly designed ranges for their armies to practise the fine art of shooting. This led to the formation of more highly trained civilian groups or militia training on a more permanent basis. This further led to civilian competitions, which are still held today.

Because land was freely available for the construction of ranges, stop butts (or backstops, as they are called in some countries), were mainly used to see where the bullet struck, enabling the shooter to observe whether the bullet hit the target. On a gallery range the mantlet and the stop butt also protect target personnel in the gallery when patching and scoring targets.

For many years, we have looked at the different designs of ranges within Australia, the main ones being:

• a gallery range with a safety zone of 1830 metres;• a field-firing rifle template range with a safety zone of 2700 metres;• a field-firing pistol template range with a safety zone of 1500 to 2000 metres;• a limited danger-area range with a safety zone of 100 metres;• a fully baffled area with nil safety zones.

These ranges require stop butts ranging from 3 metres to 8 metres, depending on their length and design. In most cases, the stop butts are constructed of natural earth and are based on ricochet angles, not free-flight angles.

Over time, we have had to change our views on why stop butts are used. In Australia, we no longer look at free flight angles for ranges because in all cases a stop butt is required and therefore a field-firing rifle template is the largest template we use. Even though the modern centrefire cartridge has changed little in the past 100 years, we have seen a change in the way we think and how we use stop butts on ranges.

48


As previously mentioned, the original main purpose of stop butts was to see where the bullet struck after firing at a target. Today, there are various reasons for their construction. This is mainly due to the shift in public opinion of shooting sports. Properly constructed stop butts give a sense of security and safety to the public and they protect the environment by confining the spread of any lead contamination.

Stop Butt Construction

As has been the practice for many years, natural earth has been the most cost-efficient way of constructing suitable stop butts. This will remain the practice for many years, but with changes in environmental laws, we have to accept that there may be suitable alternatives.

There have been studies within Australia on the use of shredded rubber tyres, wood chips, timber, steel, concrete and brick for stop butts. All of these products have been used with different degrees of success and we must always remember that stop butts are not only used behind target lines on the range, but also as side stop butts or wing walls. These need to have a similar construction, as they are designed for the same purpose – that is, to contain the projectiles within the range area. This has come about because of the development of concept shoots such as Western (Cowboy) Action, IPSC and Action Match.

Around 20 years ago some range managers and designers, with the assistance of the army, experimented by using unwanted car tyres for the construction of major stop butts. This, unfortunately, was not successful because of the potential problems of bounce-back of the projectile, of tyres igniting during fire seasons and of vermin breeding within the mound.

We have since experimented with the use of shredded tyres, having all steel components removed, as a form of building material, both on indoor and outdoor ranges. This has proved to be extremely successful, with the bullet having little or no deformity after impact.

We have also found that by covering any common striking zones on a range surface, ricochets can be virtually eliminated. We have found that woodchip, which is freely available, is an ideal material for the building of intermediate mounds and for the covering of range surfaces. Surfaces such as concrete and rock can be covered with between 100 and 150 millimetres of woodchip or rubber, and we have found excellent results in maintaining the fired projectiles within the range confinement.

Lead Confinement

The SSAA continues to monitor the amount of lead released from ranges by using our ranges at Stewartdale and Millmerran in Queensland as major testing sites. We realize that the most important way to reduce lead contamination in our waterways and subterranean reservoirs is to trap spent projectiles in the smallest area possible. Consequently, the proper design of stop butts and the appropriate continuing maintenance of ranges is now one of the most important aspects of managing a range site.

If the major and intermediate stop butts are designed in such a way as to restrict projectiles from leaving the range confines, the contaminated area is confined on a 300-metre range to approximately 3 hectares. 99.99% of the projectiles are thus trapped either within the major or intermediate stop butts, making the recycling of this lead a viable proposition.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the maintenance of ranges, in particular the stop butts and striking zones. These must be maintained at an acceptable level. If not maintained, the contaminated area may be increased by up to 300 hectares. In many cases, these 300 hectares are forest or hill country, which cannot easily be decontaminated.

49


We must make all efforts to maintain lead trapped in the confines of the mounds. Many clubs permit their members to remove spent ammunition from stop butts on a regular basis and this works well to reduce lead build-up. During the designing of stop butts, thought must also be given to the possibility of lead leaching during heavy rains. For many years we have looked at the design of covers that would restrict the amount of rain that falls on bullet catchers and striking zones of a mound. These covers would limit the amount of leaching and act as a secondary safety device to stop popovers. This is when a projectile strikes uneven or hard ground within the mound face and then travels in an upward direction, landing within 100 metres behind or to the side of the mound.

Use of Ranges

With the introduction of sporting shooters to general range use, we have seen a major shift in the way authorities look at range safety. At the turn of the century, most ranges were used for target competition and practice for military service. However, with the formation of the SSAA some 60 years ago, the design of ranges changed from having a common target line with the shooters moving backwards and forwards to various distances, to having a common firing line with a series of target lines and stop butts at various distances. The SSAA found the original design of ranges to be unworkable with the style of shooting which we participate in.

As with many other associations in different countries, we have found this new and current design to be the most practical to cater for large numbers of shooters. However, the changing of design brought a series of problems to overcome. With practical testing, most of these problems were rectified by using many of the solutions previously mentioned. One of the major design problems to overcome on existing ranges that use hill height dispensation is to build appropriate bullet catchers and stop butts at the base of the hills. When using natural hills as stop butts, one must always make sure that the appropriate angles are maintained at all times. Thus, in some cases, a series of terraces and cuts must be kept to avoid unwanted ricochets, which may exit from the extremity of the range.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to say that while we are not scientists, we are experienced and practical people who enjoy hunting and target shooting, as well as designing, building and managing ranges.

The use of lead on SSAA ranges and its subsequent potential environmental and legal consequences is an issue that we will continue to educate our members and the public about. This can be achieved by the proper design and appropriate management of range sites.

As I have said on many occasions, there are three main issues that all associations must bear in mind if we wish to maintain current ranges and build new ones for the future:

• Good design

• Good maintenance

• Good management

I cannot stress enough the importance of proper maintenance of range sites, especially in regard to stop butts, so the general public will always feel that we are doing our utmost to protect their safety and the environment.

A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION FOR CONTROLLING LEAD EMISSION

FROM BACKSTOPS

Jan Kjellberg, Sweden

Vice President of the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association, Chairman of the Executive Board and Head of the Technical Committee

53


A Sustainable Solution for Controlling Lead Emission from BackstopsJan Kjellberg, Sweden

Vice President of the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association, Chairman of the Executive Board and Head of the Technical Committee

Abstract

This presentation outlines an environmentally-friendly backstop solution patented by the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association (Pat. no. WO 2004/068060 A1). Building on the basic principle of preventing lead from breaking down through the creation of a pH-neutral environment in the backstop, the solution is inexpensive, easy to install and easy to maintain. By channelling, filtering and monitoring the wastewater from the backstop, it is possible to control for and prevent lead emissions into the surrounding environment. Favourable technical reviews of the patent have been made by Professor Emeritus Gunnar Jacks (the Royal Institute of Technology), Professor Sven Larson (Chalmers Institute of Technology) and Ulf Qvarfort (FOI, the Swedish Defence Research Agency). The cost for installation per shooting stand on rifle and pistol ranges is €500-1000, depending on fixed costs for technical equipment such as the liner and infiltration well. Yearly maintenance costs are estimated to lie between €10 and €50 per shooting stand, depending on range size and environmental conditions.

It has been nothing less than a struggle that has taken place in Sweden in order to keep lead in ammunition. It went on over several years, and, sadly, the opponents of lead used every conceivable piece of information that could serve their purpose, with supreme contempt for any facts which were thrown against them to prove them wrong. More than once, the question was asked: where is the fine line between a biased truth and an outright lie?

A lot of time and effort, money and resources went into this struggle, and finally it came to a result which could be called a great victory, at least if we stop and consider how dire the consequences of a defeat could have been.

Fundamentally, it has been decided to keep lead in centrefire and rimfire ammunition, at least until there are viable options. Copper, by the way, is not a good alternative according to the final report of the Ministry of Environment, for several reasons, including rapid corrosion and easy access by plants to that corrosion product.

It has also been decided to keep lead in shotgun ammunition for hunting over non-wetlands, but lead is gone as far as trap and skeet shooting are concerned.

The final report, which was backed not only by the government but indirectly also by the social democrats, also clearly states that shooting ranges have to be managed in an environmentally safe way. What this means is not fully understood yet, but the understanding is that it will not contribute to closing down many ranges as a result of high management costs.

The initiative to stage this present conference fits the Swedish situation and decision like a glove. If we want the shooting sports and industry to survive, then we have to be in the forefront regarding the environment.

54


Now, a low-cost, durable and environmentally sound backstop solution is possible for all pistol and rifle shooting ranges. The idea and the development of this concept come out of the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association.

The starting point for the project was the Swedish lead ban of 1998 that should have come into effect as from January 1st, 2008. So the Pistol Shooting Association started work in 2000.

As stated above, the law as it stands today, after the long but successful struggle, is that we have to manage the ranges in a good, sustainable way.

One problem in Sweden is that there are so many small ranges, more than 3000 of them. The pistol shooters have 600 member clubs, each of them with their own range. The National Rifle target shooters have at least 1000 ranges and in addition there are probably 1500 small and simple ranges for hunters, generally used for only a few weeks a year, before the moose hunt.

The Swedish shooting community is consequently faced with a number of concerns. One is the limited resources available for environmental solutions. Then, against this background, there is a need to find a simple and low-cost solution which is easy to maintain.

The only existing alternative that was available when the pistol shooters started their work was a concept from the Swedish Defence. The basic principles were to contain bullet material and wastewater in a container-like construction filled with rubber granulate and covered with a rubber liner.

However, the installation is very costly, it needs wastewater destruction, and the surface is very sensitive to ricochets and spinning bullets, especially wadcutters or hollow-points. The installation cost is high, as is the cost for maintenance. It is necessary to fit separate traps and containers for each shooting stand, simply to collect the bullets in rubber granulate. However, these are only suitable for smallbore firearms, and they have short durability.

The conclusion is that these solutions are not feasible for the vast majority of Swedish shooting ranges. An alternative principle had to be found, one that would create conditions preventing metallic decay. The obvious benefits are:

• No need to contain wastewater;

• No need to dispose of bullet material;

• Instead, conditions are created for monitoring decay and leakage of lead ions, through a special design of the backstop and the installation of a filter and measurement point.

The answer to all this is the now-patented solution from the work done at the Pistol Shooting Association of Sweden. This concept has not been patented in order to make money, but in order to protect the interests of the shooting community.

A patent was received in 2004 for A Method of Preventing the Uncontrolled Dispersal of Metallic Products from a Bullet Back Stop. This concept has been received very favourably by the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, the Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, and The Swedish Defence Research Agency. To quote them:

• The main benefit…is that levels easily can easily be monitored before and after infiltration

The method is considered to be both simpler and cheaper than comparable methods

In the backstop design, first a rubber lining is put on the soil surface. Then, a mixture of limestone and sand is put on top of the liner, all in all one metre thick, and finally a channel is created for the wastewater.

55


Through a drainage pipe the wastewater then flows to a peat cassette, about a cubic metre in volume, which has a monitoring tap through which levels of lead ions can be measured. If the content is too high, then additional limestone can be put onto the backstop.

The cost all in all comes to about €10,000 but providing the shooting or hunting club does the work voluntarily, then it comes down to roughly €8,000.

The Swedish Pistol Shooting Association claims that the technical lifetime of this construction should exceed 25 years and that a change of peat filter should cost no more than €50. A yearly levelling of the backstop is required so that ricochets are avoided and additional limestone or gypsum could be needed every tenth year or so.

To summarize, it is a simple, durable and not very expensive solution. It is reliable and it is practicable in the hands of small hunting or shooting clubs. It provides transparency so that leakage, if any, can be continuously monitored. It can be swiftly put in place. The only disadvantage compared to the concept of the Swedish Defence, described earlier, is that the risk of ricochets has to be considered. But, of course, the Swedish Defence put millions of crowns into each of its backstops.

IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

ON A SMALL ARMS TRAINING RANGE AT FORT JACKSON

Gene Fabian, Kimberly Watts and Brooke E. Conway, USA

Environmental Science and Engineering for US Department of Defence

59


Implementation of Environmental Best Management Practices on a Small Arms Training Range at Fort Jackson

Gene Fabian (Aberdeen Test Center)Kimberly Watts and Brooke E. Conway (US Army Environmental Command)U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, Military Environmental Technology Demonstration Center, 400 Colleran Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC), 5179 Hoadley Road, Bldg E4430, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 21010-5401

Abstract

The operational best management practice work done on a military small arms range in Fort Jackson in Florida is used as a case study to explore some of the principles laid out in US Army procedure. In the Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices Manual, the procedure is for site assessment to be followed by field sampling, and then by the necessary response. The options for this are broad, because the conditions on individual ranges are so very different. The key areas of possible action include changes of vegetation, management of stormwater, erosion control, structural enhancements and soil amendments. Prevention of lead migration from sites, periodic lead removal and continuing evaluation of the effectiveness of the selected processes are also important.

Introduction

The US Army Environmental Command (USAEC) and the Aberdeen Test Center have developed an operational Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual. This manual is intended to be a reference guide for installation and range personnel, for use in maintaining the long-term sustainability of their operational small arms ranges and range areas. The document aims to illustrate the ability to proactively improve both the environmental conditions of a range and the range’s mission of troop training and readiness. The main environmental concern this document addresses is the transport of small arms metal munitions constituents, primarily lead, from operational small arms range areas. Proactive, environmentally sound management of range areas may allay state and federal environmental regulatory agency concerns with the use of small arms munitions and control of their metal constituents.

This manual is for use by Army installations for identifying through internal evaluation the potential for metal munitions constituents transport and erosion concerns associated with routine training activities at operational small arms firing ranges. In addition, this manual serves as guidance on how to address or mitigate any identified areas of concern that can be addressed through relatively simple changes in the way the range is operated and maintained, or by performing range modifications.

60


The small arms range area evaluation procedures, range operation and management strategies, and ways to modify ranges discussed in this manual are designed to be low-cost and easily feasible approaches for any installation to use to improve the environmental quality and ensure the long-term sustainability of essential training areas.

This BMP manual is not intended to serve as guidance for a thorough environmental investigation, site characterization or risk assessment of small arms ranges. An environmental investigation or characterization can be a recommendation produced by the range evaluation process, but a formal environmental site characterization or human health and ecological risk assessment is beyond the scope of this BMP manual. Information sources are found throughout the manual. It is divided into sections that include:

• operational small arms range evaluation procedures;• range improvement methods (BMPs);• monitoring effectiveness of range improvements;• economic analysis;• potential funding sources for range modifications and maintenance.

The manual does not provide guidance or advice regarding the potential applicability of any environmental laws or regulations to small arms ranges. Such determinations must be made in consultation with local installation environmental personnel and lawyers. Nor does the manual provide guidance or advice regarding the potential applicability of any environmental laws or regulations to the implementation of any of the BMPs. The evaluation of any site-specific BMPs should include consultation with the installation’s environmental and legal staff to ensure that any legal or regulatory requirements are considered during BMP evaluation and are implemented if the BMP is chosen.

The overall approach was applied at Fort Jackson, in South Carolina, USA.

1. Range Assessment

The fact that lead is accumulating in the environment as a result of active small arms range use does not alone constitute a problem. If the results from an assessment of the potential transport of the lead on an operational range indicate that a potential problem exists, then appropriate management practices should be implemented based on the specific lead transport characteristics and range conditions.

An individual firing range and its surrounding areas should be examined as a whole to identify their potential effects on each other and the contribution each makes to environmental concerns. Typically, there is an entire series or complex of ranges near each other. The scale of a range assessment needs to consider the combined or cumulative effects of the entire range complex on the watershed in which it lies. This being the case, the true initial unit for assessment is on the watershed or sub-watershed scale.

A watershed-based, screening-level assessment of a small arms range training area is recommended to be accomplished in three phases. The phases of the assessment are:

Phase I – Preliminary Site Assessment

Phase II – Limited Field Sampling

Phase III – Response Implementation

The execution of this assessment should be coordinated with the installation’s environmental management. The objective of the assessment is to perform an intuitive site assessment with

61


the option of limited field sampling to determine what environmental concerns exist at a small arms range as a result of normal training operations, site-specific conditions, range design features and maintenance procedures. It is not intended to serve as a full site characterization where a systematic sampling of all environmental media would take place, or where sampling to establish background concentrations of pollutants would be performed. Common problems such as soil erosion and sediment and stormwater runoff as well as the issue of lead residue and its potential migration in the environment are the focus of the assessment.

2. Range Management Practices

The appropriate lead management practices at an operational range should be based upon the results of the range assessment of the potential transport of the lead being placed on the range. The actions selected should be limited to the minimum required to address the operation, site-specific condition, range design feature, or maintenance procedure that most affects lead transport. These actions may involve the prevention of lead migration, pollution prevention, or lead removal methods. Following are methods that may be used to implement these actions.

2.1 Lead Migration Prevention

The prevention of lead migration from the range impact area is typically the least expensive and easiest to implement of the actions that may be taken to manage lead issues on active small arms ranges. The selection of the appropriate lead migration prevention method is the key to successful lead management on a range or group of ranges. This is because each firing range, or group of ranges, is unique in terms of lead concentration, climate, physical and chemical properties of the soils, and topography. A plan for controlling lead migration must be designed based upon these site characteristics. Typically, these plans include designs to control storm water runoff, which is the predominant transport mechanism for lead contaminants. Some methods of controlling storm water runoff that may be utilized in a lead migration prevention plan are identified below:

2.1.1 Operational Methods

Operational methods for range improvement are minor to moderate changes in the way a range is used or maintained in an effort to reduce contaminant transport from the range areas. In particular, concerns from lead residues and suspended solids (from soil erosion) leaving ranges or range areas may be decreased or eliminated through relatively simple changes to range management. These changes are intended to have no impact on the training mission and can be implemented with little or no cost to the installation. Examples of Operational Best Management Practices include:

• Vegetative Solutions – provide an efficient and economical method of controlling sheet, rill and raindrop impact erosion. Vegetation will slow the stormwater runoff and filter out suspended solids before they leave the range. It also reduces erosion by protecting the soil from raindrop impact and sheet/rill erosion. Vegetative cover is relatively inexpensive to achieve and tends to be self-healing. It is often the only practical, long-term solution for stabilization and erosion control on disturbed sites.

• Storm Water Management – is used to improve runoff quality from ranges or range areas, and is the most effective overall range sustainment effort that can be performed by an installation on an operational range. Stormwater runoff represents the predominant mechanism that can transport the greatest volume of pollutants (lead residues and eroded soils and sediments), transport them the quickest, and for the greatest distances. It also represents the media and quickest pathway for affecting human or ecological health by potentially introducing range pollutants into nearby surface water resources.

62


• Geosynthetic and Erosion Control Materials – used in a wide range of applications such as general land management and rehabilitation, sediment and erosion control, and stormwater management. Uses at small arms ranges include: soil stabilization on eroding impact berms, hillsides, or stream banks; seeding or vegetating range areas; as a water-proof liner underneath a storm water drainage channel or detention pond; and silt fencing to filter or trap sediments in runoff. Geosynthetics and erosion control materials encompass a wide range of material.

• Structural Enhancements – can be used to provide an inherent stability to the slope of the berm and the concentrated impact points.

• Soil Amendments – are used to chemically stabilize soluble lead in the soil pore fluid and may be applied to ranges’ soils. If this method is considered, small scale test plots should first be designed and monitored to assess its lead stabilization performance, application rate, frequency and efficiency, and to ensure the chemical amendments are not mobilized and become a surface runoff or groundwater problem. This work should be coordinated with the installation’s environmental management.

2.2 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention techniques that may be used on small arms ranges include minimizing the amount of lead contained in the round (e.g. green ammunition) and preventing the rounds from striking the soil. These pollution prevention techniques should eliminate adverse effects on the environment and reduce future range closure costs for new ranges placed on land on which lead rounds have not been fired. Although these pollution prevention techniques basically eliminate the placement of lead in the environment through either lead replacement or capture, existing small arms ranges will still be faced with the legacy of lead contaminants from past use. The lead placed on the range and impact areas will continue to provide a source of lead for potential environmental transport. This lead source will require management throughout the useful life of the range. In such cases, the economic, and possibly the environmental, benefits of using pollution prevention methods may be greatly reduced or nullified by the existing contaminants. When considering implementation of pollution prevention techniques, specifically the use of bullet traps, on existing ranges or on new ranges being placed on land previously used for small arms training, lead migration prevention methods or lead removal should be considered a part of the design and implementation. The costs to include these may greatly increase the cost of using bullet-trapping methods to support environmental compliance on ranges.

2.3 Lead Removal

Periodic removal of lead from the range is a range maintenance activity that could be considered to control the migration of lead by removing the source, or when operational or maintenance issues arise (ricochets from accumulated metals, elevated airborne lead level, etc.). The decision to embark on a periodic lead removal program for ranges should be coordinated with the installation’s environmental management to ensure state and local regulations are met. This method of managing lead on ranges is very expensive and will result in range downtime during the maintenance event.

3. Evaluation of Implemented Management Practices

Evaluation of the effectiveness of range modifications in reducing lead transport can be performed in a number of ways. Lead levels found in transport pathways (surface water/ runoff, groundwater, air) can be measured directly or calculated as a change in transport potential. Two direct quantitative methods for measuring the effectiveness or success of range modifications are:

63


• Comparison of lead concentrations in a particular transport pathway (surface water/runoff, groundwater, air) before and after range modifications; and

• Comparison of lead levels to a regulatory standard or concentration goal after modifications.

Summary

The Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual is for use by Army installations for identifying the potential for metal munitions constituents transport and erosion concerns associated with routine training activities on operational small arms firing ranges. In addition, the manual serves as guidance on how to address or mitigate any identified areas of concern that can be addressed through relatively simple changes in the way the range is operated and maintained, or by performing range modifications to ensure the long term sustainability of the Army’s operational small arms ranges.

References

1. PRO-ACT Fact Sheet TI No. 17472. Lead Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges, June 1998; 25 March 1999.

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/pro-act/contact.asp

2. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Fabian, Gene and Kimberly Watts. Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual (SFIM-AEC-AT-CR-2006007). December 2005.

2. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Environmental Management Systems Aspect and Impact Methodology for Army Training Ranges, March 2004.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (EPA-902-B-01-001), January 2001.

4. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council - Small Arms Firing Range Team. Environmental Management at Operating Outdoor Small Arms Firing Ranges, 2005.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EXAMPLE

Jörg Brokamp, GermanyGeneral Secretary of the German Shooting Sport

& Archery Federation(Deutscher Schützenbund e.V. – DSB)

67


Best Management Practice Example

Jörg Brokamp, GermanyGeneral Secretary of the German Shooting Sport & Archery Federation(Deutscher Schützenbund e.V. – DSB)

Abstract

This is a short presentation of a best-practice example: the preservation of old shotgun ranges for shooting sport activities with special care taken over environmental, legal and sporting aspects. This is shown by reference to the renovation and enlargement of the Rheinblick National Olympic Training Centre shotgun range (actually three ranges combined) belonging to the German Shooting Sport and Archery Federation in Wiesbaden, Germany.

The following aspects are emphasized:

- Water and soil protection

- Control of lead shot dispersion

- Reduction of shooting noise

- Combined use of different models (both sport-shooting and hunting disciplines)

- Strategic alliances (sport shooting and golf)

Introduction

The German Shooting Federation is the head organization of shooting sport and archery in Germany. Its disciplines focus mostly but not entirely on the Olympic sphere. About 1.5 million shooters in more than 15,000 clubs are organized under its roof. The German Shooting Federation operates a national training centre at its headquarters in Wiesbaden for its national teams’ preparations for international competitions. Part of this training centre is a shotgun range, which was built by the US army after World War II and which was the venue of the ISSF world shooting championships in 1966. Around 1980 the range was modernized and a small berm (about 6 m) was added. Since then the range, operated locally by a very active club (Wiesbaden Shotgun Club), has not undergone major alterations.

However, the legal framework regarding shooting ranges in Germany and the technical development of shotgun shooting on an international level have changed considerably.

Legal framework

In 1999 the German Federal Soil Protection Act and the Federal Soil Protection and Contamination Sites Ordinance became effective. The aim of both is the lasting protection, preservation and restoration of the soil’s functionality. For the operation of shotgun ranges the following additional acts apply: the Federal Emission Control Act (primarily against noise) –

68


according to which a shotgun range is subject to authorization; the Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management And Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal; various water acts, and, last but not least, the Weapons Act.

Technical developments in sport

The technical developments of the various ISSF competitions especially need to be mentioned here, such as the introduction of the competition of double trap and skeet for women. Moreover the traps and range automation (control units, results and competition management) have been further developed quite rapidly, not to mention the international standard of performance (the improvement of shooting scores) in shotgun shooting and the progress in performance diagnosis and the science of training.

Like many other operators of shotgun ranges, the German Shooting Federation faced the decision either to modernize its shotgun range located centrally in urban Rhein-Main, spending a not insignificant amount of money and thus adjusting it to international standards, or to abandon one of Germany’s largest shotgun ranges and shut down the range at Rheinblick.

Very quickly it became obvious that the only possibility was modernization. What would all the operators of smaller shotgun ranges being in similar situations have said if their own Federal Association had shut down its shotgun ranges and surrendered to the variety of legal demands and financial difficulties?

In the end the consideration of all arguments was crucial for the decision of the German Shooting

69


Federation. All pros and cons were put into a SWOT-analysis and intensively discussed.

Within the scope of the planning and implementation of any modernization measures the following points had to be taken into account:

• Cooperation of experts from different areas including: building of shooting ranges, environmental law, shotgun shooting, shooters; and also organizations which have made it their business to support operators of shotgun ranges, such as the Federal Association of Shooting Ranges, Germany;

• To definitely preserve the Rheinblick shotgun range as one of the largest and most important ranges in Germany for the future development of shotgun shooting;

• To make the use of lead pellets at the Rheinblick shooting range safe. In international shooting sport, lead pellets are used. To preserve their ability to compete internationally, German shooters must have the option to train with lead pellets. There are not any practical alternatives to lead pellets;

• The adaptation of the shooting range in compliance with environmental legal guidelines and the state-of-the-art technical level must show a healthy cost-benefit ratio. There has to be an extensive planning approach. Selecting only specific problem areas and finding a solution for them (such as noise, soil and water protection, safety) will not lead to a firm and future-oriented overall solution.

The implementation of the measures set out to deal with the following threats (see the SWOT analysis):

Water protection

The Rheinblick shooting range lies within a water reserve Zone 2 and 3. Additionally there is a well below the range (about 1 km) belonging to the local waterworks for the taking of drinking water. Within a water reserve Zone 2 the practice of shooting sports and the application of lead are only possible if they meet extensive and very cost-intensive conditions.

Water-related measures

Within the scope of different experts’ certificates regarding the quality (contamination) of soil and water (monitoring) it was unequivocally ascertained that all drinking water values were within normal ranges and thus far below legal threshold values. The soil contamination in the deposit area behind the old berm was partly above standard values. Because of the spacious enclosure, the surface conditions and most of all the ascertained immobility of the lead there is no discernible danger for humans.

To remove any possible contamination and pollution of the water by any future shooting activity, the permission authority demanded a nearly 100% retention of pellets and a sealing of the whole acreage of the shooting range. It was imperative that no surface water could seep away.

The whole area of the shooting range was made watertight up to the top of the berm with bentonite webs (impermeable clay “carpets”) with a porosity of 10 -11 m/s. The surface water is collected via a drainage system and retention basins. It is pumped through a pressure culvert to a nearby golf course outside the water reserve zone.

With these measures the future shooting activities at the range could be ensured in a water reserve Zone 2 and 3.

Soil Protection

The intensive shooting and the minor berm bring on an intensive application of lead (because of the low berm height of just 6 m as many as 70% of the pellets would fall at a distance of 150 – 200 m behind the berm).

70


Soil-related measures

Within the schedule of permission a complete rehabilitation of the fall zone was considered. Taking into account all aspects, especially the rather positive results of soil and drinking water tests, the positive soil surface conditions and the immobility of the lead already proved, in addition to the wide-ranging effects of a massive interference with the environment (complete clearing, soil clearing and replacement), the administrative body reached the following conclusions about the need for:

• A controlled method of leaving the lead on the surface (an accepted method according to the Federal Soil Protection Act);

• Monitoring to evaluate possible endangerment;

• Enclosure of the whole shotgun range plus the fall zone

Backstops – control of lead dispersion

The berm of the old shotgun range was only 6 m high. As already described the majority of pellets fell down behind the berm. The permission authority made a nearly 100% retention of pellets a condition.

Backstop-related measures

The technical calculations (trajectories for lead pellets) worked on with the experts of the Federal Association of Shooting Ranges showed that for normal usage – considering the topographical circumstances (a hillside location), the ecological and economic interests and a restriction of the ejection angle of targets – an optimized berm height of 16 m would lead to almost 100% retention of pellets.

Because of the limited area of the shooting range, raising the berm by an additional 10 m proved impossible. The base of the berm would have been too broad. A thinner base would have resulted in a steeper and structurally unstable berm construction.

Consequently the bottom of the shooting range was lowered by 3 m. The excavated, partly- contaminated earth was reused in the new berm. This made for major cost reductions (no disposal of contaminated soil, and no purchase of earth for enlargement of the berm).

To reach the ideal berm height of 16 m, a 2 m gabion wall was installed at its top.

Reduction of shooting noise

A major reason for the planned alterations was noise protection, because there were sporadic complaints regarding shooting noise. Additionally the permission authority made the threshold values of TA-Lärm (technical guidelines concerning noise) part of their conditions.

Within the scope of an expert forecast of the noise, the probable development of the noise level for specific measurement points, considering the planned construction changes, was presented like this:

Forecast values:measurement point 1 (2.4 km) = 56.4 dB(A) measurement point 2 (2.4 km) = 51.2 dB(A)measurement point 3 (1.8 km) = 61.7 dB(A)

Noise-related measures

The enlargement of the berm up to 16 m should have resulted in a considerable noise reduction. The gabion wall was filled with soil and planted with different types of grass. This made for additional sound absorption.

71


The measurements of noise after construction changes showed the following values:

Actual values after alterations:measurement point 1 (2.4 km) = 51.2 dB(A) – TA-Lärm legal limit = 55 dB(A)measurement point 2 (2.4 km) = 49.5 dB(A) – TA-Lärm legal limit = 55 dB(A)measurement point 3 (1.8 km) = 57.5 dB(A) – TA-Lärm legal limit = 60 dB(A)

All measurement values show a reduction of noise. They are well under the TA-Lärm threshold values. With the alterations the required noise reduction was reached.

Conclusion

Modernizing the Rheinblick shotgun range turned out to be the right decision for the German Shooting Sport and Archery Federation. The alterations led to the following accomplishments:

• Preservation of one of the largest shotgun ranges in a central area of Germany as part of the National Training Centre of the German Shooting Sport and Archery Federation;

• Best training and competition conditions (enlargement of three combined ranges), with new and attractive competitions for shotgun shooting;

• Compliance with environmental legal conditions, important for the safeguarding of the shotgun range’s future;

• Adaptation of the shooting range in compliance with environmental legal guidelines and also state- of-the-art technical improvements showing a healthy cost-benefit-ratio;

• Cooperation with new partners (golf club, hunters) meaning possible new members.

Session 2

Lead Reclamation

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR COLLECTING LEAD

- LATEST PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS

Stefano Bufi, Italy

Civil Engineer, partner in the OFFICINA 8 association for town-planning design, architecture, engineering

and environmental issues

77

Session 2. Workshop Proceedings - Lead Reclamation

Methods and Techniques for Collecting LeadLatest Project Developments

Stefano Bufi, ItalyCivil Engineer, partner in the OFFICINA 8 association for town-planning design, architecture, engineering and environmental issues

Abstract

The aim of the study is to provide optimum solutions for the interception and collection of lead pellets in order to modify existing facilities and build new facilities in compliance with environmental compatibility principles. Theoretical solutions have been assumed based on the current standards and regulations, a study of the lead pellet ballistic characteristics, an evaluation of the techniques currently used for interception and collection, and analysis of the resistance of the materials. These solutions have been compared with the most up-to-date experience in Italian facilities and then optimized further. A range of solutions is proposed which may be applied to the various existing situations. The interception systems always consist of a combination of an embankment topped by a steel-wired net, with its height depending on the distance from the shooting platform. The collection systems consist of a confinement area and a collection area, the latter formed by a covering which enables the removal of the residual lead by mechanical means.

1. Contents of the study

Environmental problems are becoming increasingly important in the clay target shooting world, and in the immediate future every possible effort must be made to update existing ranges and plan new ones in full respect of the latest standards.

Among these latter the problem of collecting lead is particularly important.

With this in mind, the Associazione Nazionale Produttori Armi e Munizioni (ANPAM) and Comitato Nazionale Caccia e Natura (CNCN) have charged the Studio Tecnico Associato Officina 8 with the investigation of innovative technical solutions to optimize the interception and collection of lead on clay target shooting ranges. The headquarters are located in Terni, and the group for this task comprises the engineers and industrial experts Stefano Bufi, Cesare Marchetti, Carlo Romito and Gabriele Valentini.

Studio Officina 8 has been further supported in this undertaking by a team of consultants from the Federazione Italiana Tiro a Volo (FITAV) in the persons of Prof. Giulio Ceccarelli, Dr. Stefano Rosi and Dr. Silvano Verdenelli.

78


2. Methodological approach

The method used to develop the study involved three aspects:

• an external approach, also called “free thinking”, which allowed the team of technicians to consider the task from a purely theoretical standpoint, without being restricted in any way, for better or worse, by any internal knowledge of the world of clay target shooting;

• application of a scientific method for the study of project solutions;

• comparison of the theoretical solutions which have been developed with systems already applied in the national context and their application in the actual conditions in the ranges.

3. Objectives of the study

By applying the method described above it has been possible to propose, for intercepting and collecting lead, several technical solutions which are:

• effective: in other words, such as to come close to a 100% collection of the lead residues;

• technically versatile: in other words, such as to be applicable both to new clay target ranges and to the greater number of those already in existence;

• user-friendly for the range personnel: in other words, such as require only simple organization, and both reasonable and sustainable human and financial resources.

4. The evolution process

The study was prepared on the basis of the following steps:

• The assignment phase in which the objectives of the study were defined and agreed in a preliminary meeting with the client;

• Analysis of the existing documentation, with particular attention to study of the sporting activity itself and the ballistics of lead shot;

• A visit to a clay target shooting range not provided with any particular devices for intercepting and collecting lead pellets;

• A first draft of tentative projects, discussed in a meeting with the client;

• Visits to clay target shooting ranges already equipped with systems for intercepting and collecting lead residues, followed by a critical analysis of the systems adopted;

• Optimization of the project solutions selected;

• Experimental trials of the solutions selected by carrying out tests on prototypes of interception and collection systems installed for the occasion at a shooting range.

5. The present context

Visits were made to the most important clay target shooting ranges in the country, in terms of the systems they have already adopted to improve their environmental status with regard to the interception and collection of lead.

From what was presented, we can see that the range managers who have faced up to the problem have done so with good will. They have put measures into operation which are certainly interesting, but these in general are basic in character, not very professional and involving only limited expenditure.

79


6. Project solutions

The solutions proposed start out from a knowledge of the trajectory of lead pellets. They comprise three elements:

A) an interception barrier whose purpose is to reduce the area of fall of the lead residues;

B) a restricting zone whose purpose is to direct the lead residues into the collection zone;

C) a collection zone, of very limited dimensions, from which the lead can be easily removed.

Three possible solutions were found:

Solution 1

The interception barrier is composed of an embankment of earth 10 metres high crowned with metal netting 11 metres high, for an overall height of 21 metres; the foot of the embankment is 115 metres from the firing plate.

The metal netting is held by horizontal steel wires strung between stayed steel poles 400 mm in diameter, set 5 metres apart.

To allow the lead shot to roll down towards the collection zone, the embankment is covered with a lower layer of black plastic film and an upper layer of woven polyethylene.

The restricting zone is formed by an earth embankment 2.5 metres high, sloping down for 21 metres towards the collection zone; to allow the shot to slide down easily, the embankment is covered with an EVA sheet 0.22 mm thick laid on a bed of sand 15 cm deep.

Finally, the collection zone is a corridor 2.50 metres wide, formed by a roadbed covered with a 3-cm layer of fine-grain asphalt.

The residual lead reaches this zone and can be easily collected with an industrial vacuum cleaner which can be hired as necessary.

Solution 2

The system of embankment plus netting is of the same type as Solution 1 but in this case the foot of the embankment is 95 metres from the firing plate.

The restricting zone here is a corridor 4.20 metres wide, with a double slope to take the lead residues down into a PVC gutter situated in the centre.

To allow the pellets to slide down, the roadbed base is covered with an EVA sheet 0.22 mm thick laid on a bed of sand 15 cm thick.

The lead is collected from the gutter by a vehicle-mounted vacuum cleaner with a flexible suction tube.

Solution 3

The system of embankment plus netting here is of the same type as the previous ones but in this case the netting is only 9 metres high, everything being placed at 125 metres from the firing plate.

The system for restricting the lead to a limited area from which collection is easy in this case utilizes a sliding sheet of PVC 0.5 mm thick to cover the fall zone of the pellets. The PVC sheet is therefore about 35 metres wide.

80


The sheet is then pulled towards and wound onto a revolving motorized drum. This operation makes all the lead on the sheet fall into a cement gutter installed at the foot of the embankment: in the centre of this gutter there is a channel of PVC and from this the lead can be removed with a system like that found in Solution 2.

7. Resistance trials

To test in practice the proposed solutions, a trial was made at an existing clay target shooting range. A prototype interception system was set up with embankment plus netting; 10 different types of materials were fitted and exposed to a series of shots at different distances: 110, 90 and as close as 60 metres, to verify their resistance even under conditions of maximum strain, which are sometimes met with in actual ranges.

500 shots were fired at a distance of 110 metres, 1000 shots at 90 metres and a further 500 at 60 metres.

Six different types of netting were satisfactory at 110 metres, while only two types of netting and one type of plastic sheet of American manufacture were undamaged at 90 metres; finally, at 60 metres only one type of metal netting proved satisfactory.

8. Conclusions

The study shows that a range of effective solutions does exist. They are technically feasible and easy to use by plant managers to resolve the problem of collecting lead residues.

The solutions proposed can be utilized both to construct new, ecologically-friendly facilities as well as to update existing ones.

The diversity of the solutions means that a case-by-case study must be made to select the most appropriate way to respond to the environmental, physical, and location features, the sum available for such investment and the management requirements of each individual facility; for all these reasons it is consequently essential to utilize a well-qualified technical consultancy which is able to propose the best solution for each site.

INCREASING THE RECYCLING OF LEAD AMMUNITION

Dick Peddicord , USA

PhD in Marine Science from the University of Virginia: Assessment and management of environmental risk,

EPA Environmental Quality 2003

83


Increasing the Recycling of Lead Ammunition

Dick Peddicord, USAPhD in Marine Science from the University of Virginia: Assessment and management of environmental risk, EPA Environmental Quality 2003

Abstract

A substantial increase in the amount of bullet and shot material recycled from outdoor shooting ranges is important for environmental, political, and public perception reasons. This paper examines the major economic factors of lead reclaiming and recycling: the scrap metal value of lead, the percentage of lead in the reclaimed material, recycler’s processing fee, the cost of reclamation, and the cost of transportation to the recycling facility. Discussion focuses on how these factors might be manipulated by cooperative actions of interested parties to reduce costs and thus increase the recycling of lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges. The factors that presently appear to be most amenable to positive influence are the cost of reclamation and the cost of transportation.

Introduction

Recycling of lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges is clearly in the best interest of range owners and operators for a variety of reasons, including:

• Discouraging legal and regulatory actions related to potential environmental concerns about adequacy of lead management;

• Providing tangible evidence of proactive efforts to be good environmental citizens regarding management of lead;

• Reducing the likelihood of encountering the potentially high costs, long-term liabilities, legal uncertainties and adverse public relations of dealing with environmental allegations associated with not recycling lead.

The converse is that ranges not recycling lead ammunition are in jeopardy. Viewed on a large scale, if shooting at such ranges decreases or ceases, that shooting will be assimilated in part, but only in part, by other ranges. The cumulative effect will be a decrease in shooting that can only have negative repercussions for every company and individual involved in the shooting sports, not just the ranges that are not recycling lead. Consequently, increasing the recycling of lead ammunition is in the best interest of the entire shooting community.

Lead recycling will not be available unless the companies that provide the services can achieve a reasonable economic return with some degree of assurance. Unless some expectation of

84


reasonable profit can be achieved, there will be no incentive to improve technologies or to continue to provide lead recycling services for outdoor shooting ranges.

This paper examines some major economic components of recycling lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges, and encourages discussion of possible ways in which various components of the shooting community might help improve the economics and thus increase the recycling of lead ammunition.

2 Economic Context For Lead Recycling

Lead reclaiming and lead recycling are two distinct processes, both of which are necessary components of lead management at shooting ranges. Lead reclaiming involves collecting spent shot or bullets, usually by excavating the surface soil containing the lead, and separating the lead from rocks, twigs, etc. Lead recycling involves reprocessing lead that has been used for one purpose so it can be used again in another way. This usually requires separating all non-lead materials, melting the lead and removing any impurities, and preparing it for sale to a company that will use it to manufacture a new product. Lead reclaiming and recycling are usually done by different companies, although many lead reclamation companies will sell the lead directly to a recycler. Lead recycling implies prior lead reclaiming, and recycling is often used in a general sense to include both processes (as in the title of this paper). However, the focus of this paper is primarily on reclaiming lead, including preparation, delivery and sale to a recycler.

2.1 Cost Of Lead Reclamation

This paper is not a detailed economic analysis, but an overview of major economic factors as they affect the cost of recycling spent lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges. An accurate cost estimate for periodic lead reclamation and recycling would require details for the various steps of the entire process specific to the particular range being evaluated. The following illustrations provide a general indication of the major factors and their approximate magnitude of cost that influence the economics of reclaiming and recycling spent lead ammunition at outdoor shooting ranges. These illustrations should be considered no more than a general indication of approximate relative costs as a context for recognizing the economic pressures that bear on reclaiming and recycling lead at outdoor shooting ranges.

This summary of the major factors affecting the economics of such lead reclamation and recycling can be used to calculate an indication of the value of reclaimed lead to a range or reclaiming company. Although the following calculations are based on the common excavate-and-dry-sieve technology, they illustrate major economic factors that apply to all lead reclamation technologies.

Calculations are provided to illustrate two hypothetical situations.

Situation A Situation B

A hypothetical shotgun range (Range A) located relatively near a recycling facility that reclaims a relatively large quantity of lead.

A hypothetical rifle/pistol range (Range B) located relatively far from a recycling facility that reclaims a relatively small quantity of lead.

85


The following general equation summarizes the major factors affecting reclamation for recycling, and calculates an indication of the value of reclaimed lead to a range or reclaiming company.

V = (W x S x %Pb) – (W x F) – R –T

where the terms of the equation are defined as described below:

V is the value to a range or reclamation company of the lead reclaimed for recycling. A positive value indicates a profit for the range, and a negative value indicates that the lead reclamation and recycling operation is a net cost to the range or reclaiming company.

W is the amount of lead reclaimed and recycled.


Assume reclamation after 3,000,000 targets: 1⅛th oz lead fired at each target = 3,375,000 oz divided by 16 oz/lb = 210,938 lb = 105 tons of lead.

Assume reclamation when lead reaches an average of 5 lb/ft2 over a backstop with a face measuring 20 ft x 200 ft: 20 ft x 200 ft = 4,000 ft2; 4,000 ft2 x 5 lb/ft2 = 20,000 lb = 10 tons of lead.

S is the scrap metal value of lead, which for these calculations was obtained from the web site www.recycle.net/price/metals.html. On June 14, 2004 the scrap lead average current market value was given as $0.19/lb, or $380/ton. The scrap metal value of lead fluctuates, but $0.19/lb is used as a reasonable approximation in the following calculations.

%Pb is the percentage of lead in the material delivered to the recycling facility. %Pb has two major components.

1. Lead in bullets and shot is not pure lead, but an alloy containing other metals to give it the desired characteristics. Many bullets have jackets of other metals, which may themselves have some value, but are present in such quantities relative to the lead, that for practical purposes, they usually act as residues that must be separated from the lead rather than as valuable components.

2. Reclaimed bullets and shot also contain varying amounts of dirt, pebbles, sand, plant matter and other debris, even when the most efficient methods are used to remove such material.

Even very clean reclaimed lead is typically less than 90 per cent lead by weight, and often contains 80 per cent lead or less. %Pb of eighty per cent is used in these calculations.

F is the processing fee charged by the recycling facility to accept the reclaimed material for processing. This varies over time with each recycling facility, and varies with the cleanliness (%Pb) of each batch of reclaimed material, but a reasonable current approximation appears to be about $0.14/lb or $280/ton.

86


R is the cost of lead reclamation, separation of extraneous material (i.e., dirt, pebbles, twigs) from the lead, and returning the residual soil to its original location. R can be influenced by many factors, including:

• Soil type• Soil moisture• Root mass of vegetation• Trees, heavy brush, etc.• Boulders• Managing surface drainage during the operation, including possible stormwater erosion of stockpiles or re-graded soil• Weather delays• Managing worker exposure to lead and dust• Mobilization and demobilization costs• Local labour rates

Recognizing the importance of site-specific conditions related to factors such as the above in determining R for a particular reclamation operation, R can be roughly approximated for the purposes of this illustration as follows.


Assume a shotfall zone equivalent to that of 10 adjacent skeet fields, or approximately 32 acres, is excavated 6 in deep to reclaim shot. 43,560 ft2/acre x 32 acres = 1,393,920 ft2 x 0.5 ft deep = 696,960 ft3 = 25,813 yd3 of material processed to reclaim lead.

Assume the 4,000 ft2 of the backstop face is excavated 2 ft deep to reclaim bullets. 4,000 ft2 x 2 ft = 8,000 ft3 = 296 yd3 of material processed to reclaim lead.

Excavate, load, carry, and stockpile soil on site: 25,813 yd3 @ $5/yd3 = $129,065

Excavate, load, carry, and stockpile soil on site: 296 yd3 @ $5/yd3 = $1,480

Load stockpiled soil containing lead into trommel screen and operate screen: 25,813 yd3 @ $2/yd3 = $51,626

Load stockpiled soil containing lead into trommel screen and operate screen: 296 yd3 @ $2.00/yd3 = $592

Load, carry, distribute, and grade residual soil on site: 25,813 yd3 @ $5/yd3 = $129,065

Load, carry, and re-construct face of backstop with residual soil: 296 yd3 @ $3/yd3 = $888

R = $309,756 R = $2,960

87


T is transportation costs to deliver the reclaimed lead to the recycling facility. Transportation cost depends primarily on distance and weight of lead transported. T can be roughly approximated for the purposes of this illustration as follows.


Place reclaimed lead on trucks and transport to recycling facility. Assume 20 tons/truck = 5 trucks; travel speed of 50 mph for 50 mi = 2 hr round trip travel + 15 min to load & 15 min to unload = 2.5 hr/truck; tractor & trailer cost $85/hr. 5 trucks x 2.5 hrs x $85/hr. T = $1,062

Place reclaimed lead on trucks and transport to recycling facility. Assume 20 tons/truck = 1 truck; travel speed of 50 mph for 150 mi = 6 hr round trip travel + 15 min to load & 15 min to unload = 6.5 hr/truck; tractor & trailer cost $85/hr. 1 truck x 6.5 hrs x $85/hr. T = $552

Using these approximations, the value of reclaimed lead at Range A and Range B is:


V = (W x S x %Pb) – (W x F) – R –T V = (W x S x %Pb) – (W x F) – R –T

V = (105 tons x $380/ton x 0.80) – (105 tons x $280/ton) – $206,504 - $1,062

V = (10 tons x $380/ton x 0.80) – (10 tons x $280/ton) – $2,368 - $552

V = $31,920 - $29,400 – $309,756 – $1,062 V = $3,040 - $2,800 – $2,368 – $552

V = - $308,298 V = - $2,680

In these examples, the value of the reclaimed lead at the recycler is approximately $31,920 and $3,040. However, the cumulative costs of the recycler’s handling fee, plus the cost of recovering the lead, plus the cost of transporting the lead to the recycler are over 10 times the value of the lead in Situation A and 2 times the value of the lead in Situation B. This results in a net cost to the range or reclaiming company in both situations. These costs would be repeated for every lead reclamation and recycling operation. If reclamation and recycling were to occur on a 5- to 10-year cycle, this would result in annualized costs for these activities of approximately $30,829 to $61,660 in Situation A and $268 to $536 in Situation B.

These hypothetical examples are not meant to reflect actual costs of lead reclaiming and recycling, or to accurately indicate actual costs of various components of the total cost. They merely illustrate the fundamentally important facts that:

• Reclaimed lead is a valuable commodity, but its value is low relative to costs of reclamation, processing, and transportation;

• The major cost factors that appear most amenable to improvement efforts are:o Costs of reclamation and separation of extraneous metals and non-metallic debris (R in the preceding calculations);o Cost of transportation (T in the preceding calculations).

88


2.2 Implications of Cost Factors

Some cost factors discussed above vary in response to forces largely beyond the control of ranges and lead reclamation firms, some can be influenced to some extent by ranges and or reclamation firms, and ranges and or reclamation firms can have a major influence on some cost factors.

2.2.1 W: Amount of Lead Reclaimed and Recycled

W is determined primarily by the range owner or operator. If there were no other considerations, the most cost-effective lead reclamation and recycling for the range owner or operator would take place when the largest practical amount of lead had accumulated. Reclamation firms have some influence on W to the extent that they determine the exact area from which they reclaim lead (i.e., at rifle and pistol ranges, reclamation may include part of the range floor as well as the backstop; at shotgun ranges, reclamation may take place over a larger proportion of the shotfall zone). Range owners or operators can control the exact area of reclamation by specifying it in reclamation contracts. Of course, reclamation from areas with less than maximum quantities of lead tends to increase the cost per unit of lead reclaimed and thus increase overall reclamation costs.

2.2.2 S: Scrap Metal Value of Lead

The scrap metal value of lead fluctuates with market forces that are largely beyond the influence of reclamation firms and range owners or operators.

2.2.3 %Pb: Percent Lead in the Recycled Material

The per cent lead in the material delivered to the recycler is in part determined by the alloys in new shot and bullets and the metals in bullet jackets. The components of bullets and shot are determined by the manufacturer and are beyond the influence of the reclaimer and range. However, the care of the reclaimer and the efficiency of the technology used to separate reclaimed lead from dirt, pebbles, sand, plant matter and other extraneous debris are within the direct control of the reclaimer and are very important in determining the percentage of lead in the material delivered to the recycler. This critical factor in the economic viability of the reclamation and recycling process can be influenced greatly by the reclaimer.

2.2.4 F: Processing Fee

The processing fee charged by the recycler to accept and process the reclaimed lead varies over time with each recycling facility owing, in part, to forces beyond the influence of reclaimers and range owners or operators. However, the cleanliness of each batch of lead (i.e., %Pb) is a major determinant of the processing fee. Fees for lead essentially free of extraneous debris are considerably lower than fees for lead containing large amounts of debris. The amount of debris can be so high that recyclers will not accept the reclaimed lead at any fee because the cost of separation would exceed the value of the separated lead. The reclaimer can exert important influence on the processing fee by maximizing the %Pb in the material delivered for recycling.

2.2.5 R: Cost of Collecting Lead and Removing Debris

R is one of the most important factors in the economic viability of lead reclamation and recycling. The major components of R are the costs of collecting shot or bullets, and the costs of separating them from extraneous debris. While fuel costs are largely beyond the control of the reclaimer, the efficiency of the technology, managerial efficiency of the project and the skill of personnel are important factors determined by the reclaimer.

89


R is the cost factor most directly influenced by the characteristics of the reclamation technology. R is influenced by many variables, including initial capital cost of the equipment, durability, maintenance costs, fuel efficiency, throughput capacity, operator requirements, efficiency of lead recovery and separation, mobilization and demobilization costs and other features that are important in the overall cost effectiveness of the technology. Details of many of these variables are typically considered proprietary by reclaimers, but are crucial for the economic viability of lead reclamation and recycling at outdoor shooting ranges.

2.2.6 T: Transportation Costs

Transportation costs to deliver the reclaimed lead to the recycler depend primarily on distance and weight of lead transported. Although the %Pb may have a minor influence on T, the reclaimer has little control over fuel and other transportation-related costs that are the major determinants of T. In some circumstances, some reclaimers have been able to affect T by intensifying their efforts to find buyers of the lead relatively close to the range.

2.2.7 V: Value of Reclaimed and Recycled Lead to the Range or Reclamation CompanyMany range owners and operators expect reclaiming and recycling lead to result in a net profit for the range. This occurs today at ranges where conditions make reclamation of clean lead relatively easy and inexpensive, and may have occurred more frequently in the past. The expectation of profit is a primary incentive for having lead reclaimed and recycled. (The other primary incentive at rifle and pistol ranges was concern about ricochets as the number of bullets lodged in the backstop increased.) However, most reclaimers no longer consider it realistic for most range owners or operators to expect a profit from having lead reclaimed and recycled, and do not expect this situation to reverse in the future. Cumulative total costs are expected to remain sufficiently high relative to the value of lead that range owners and operators should expect a net cost, rather than a profit, for having lead reclaimed and recycled.

If profit is no longer a viable incentive, range owners and operators have other powerful incentives for reclaiming and recycling lead consistent with EPA best management practices. The most powerful of these incentives are regulatory pressures, liability issues and public perception forces, all of which have very real financial implications and can be viewed as different forms of incentives to avoid potentially very serious economic costs if lead is not managed properly, including periodic reclamation and recycling.

3.0 Increasing Lead Reclamation And Recycling

This section illustrates some possible approaches that might positively affect some of the economic factors discussed above, with the cumulative result of improving the economics and thus increasing reclaiming and recycling lead ammunition from outdoor shooting ranges. It is intended to stimulate thinking and encourage innovation, and not as recommendations for direct implementation.

Almost any change in current practices would involve some degree of resistance from some segment of the shooting sports, not the least of which might be shooters. However, change is necessary if lead reclaiming and recycling are to increase, and finding ways to successfully deal with reluctance is simply one more component of the process of increasing recycling.

Of the economic factors discussed above, the ones that presently appear most amenable to change with the greatest potential to positively improve the economics of reclaiming for recycling are R (the costs of lead reclamation and processing) and T (the costs of transporting reclaimed lead to a recycler). Improving these cost factors, particularly R, will also have positive secondary implications for several other factors. Consequently, the following discussion focuses on R and T.

90


It addresses three components of the shooting sports community:

• range owners and operators;

• reclamation firms;

• industrial organizations and trade associations.

Although the general composition of each group is implicit in the names, the groups purposely are not defined precisely. The exact composition may depend on the particular issue being addressed, and determining the proper mix of interests to address specific issues may well be an important determinant of success. Coordinated action by multiple groups may offer the greatest opportunity for improvement in some issues. With innovation, each of these general groups has the potential to make major contributions to improving R and T, and thus increase lead reclamation and recycling at outdoor ranges.

3.1 Range Owners And Operators

Range owners and operators have the potential to improve the economics of various components of R in several ways, including those summarized below. Any action could be gradually implemented over time as available funds, labour, equipment, and other factors allow.

3.1.1 Cost of Collecting Lead

One of the major components of R is the cost of collecting lead from where it falls on a range. Whether this is done by excavating the surficial soil, vacuum, or other means, the following illustrate possible opportunities for range owners and operators to improve the economics of this component of R. Clearly, all do not apply to every range, nor are all equally practicable or beneficial at every range to which they may apply.

3.1.1.1 Access to shotfall zone

Many trap and skeet ranges are mowed grassy fields as far downrange as targets fly, but most shot falls well beyond the targets in areas that are often overgrown in weeds, brush, or trees. Such vegetation greatly hampers access by equipment used to collect shot, making collection costly, cost-prohibitive, or in some cases practically impossible. Range owners and operators could lower shot collection costs and increase the area from which shot could be recovered by increasing the proportion of the shotfall zone maintained in mowed grass and minimizing the proportion with vegetation that hampers shot collection. In addition to reducing the cost of collecting it, shot recovered from mowed grassy fields is likely to contain fewer sticks, twigs, and leaves that must be removed, thus somewhat improving:

• the cost component of R related to removing debris;

• %Pb (the percent of lead in the material delivered to the recycler);

• F (the fee charged by the recycler).

A separate component of access to the shotfall zone relates to the terrain. Equipment access is hampered by steep slopes, large rocks or boulders, stumps, damp areas, etc. Even on relatively flat and open fields, barriers such as gullies, ditches, washes, and similar features interrupt efficient equipment operation and increase costs of equipment operation. Anything range owners and operators can do to minimize such obstacles to efficient equipment operation is advantageous. Actions might include such things as attention to this issue during the situating of new ranges or range expansions, grading shotfall zones to minimize damp areas and abrupt features like ditches, removal of large rocks and stumps, etc.

91


The above discussion of access to shotfall zones also applies to sporting clays courses. The nature of sporting clays makes the actions mentioned above more challenging than at trap and skeet ranges. However, careful layout of stations and target presentations can optimize the proportion of shot that falls in relatively accessible areas.

3.1.1.2 Configuration of fields

Independent of the nature of the shotfall zone, the area from which shot is recovered is a major determinant of the cost of collecting lead. Any action that reduces the size of the shotfall zone will reduce the cost of collecting shot. For example:

• If a series of three adjacent trap fields are laid out with the first and third fields canted slightly toward the middle field, their shotfall zones can be made to overlap without affecting shooting or safety. The total area of the combined shotfall zones can be approximately half what it would be if the fields were arranged in the typical straight line. A large trap range being designed in the central United States is evaluating arranging approximately 15 adjacent trap fields with the trap houses on an arc of 1,000-foot radius instead of a straight line. This would place the same amount of shot in a considerably smaller area, reducing the area from which shot would have to be collected and increasing the amount of shot recovered per hour of equipment operation.

• At some ranges, skeet or trap fields shoot into a clear level field from which shot can be easily reclaimed. The field is wider than the required safety area, and sporting clays stations located on the other side of the field also shoot into the field. The shooting positions are located in the woods that surround the field so that the shooter has the feel of a typical sporting clays course, but stations are oriented and targets are presented so the preponderance of shot falls into the open field. This concentrates all the trap, skeet, and sporting clays shot in one area optimized for reclamation, decreasing the area from which shot must be recovered, maximizing the quantity of shot recovered per hour of equipment operation, and minimizing the tree debris that must be separated from the recovered shot. All these factors combine to reduce reclamation costs and promote periodic shot reclamation in a way that has proved entirely acceptable to shooters, few of whom notice the layout or are aware of the reason for it.

3.1.1.3 Shot barriers

Various sorts of barriers have been proposed to intercept shot after it has passed the targets. Some EU countries are evaluating high earthen backstops just beyond the regulation flight of targets to intercept shot. In the United States the use of fabric curtains has been proposed and tried on a limited scale to block shot from sensitive habitats like wetlands. One result of any barrier that intercepts shot is that it reduces the size of the shotfall zone and confines the shot to a smaller area, minimizing the effort required to collect the shot and maximizing the amount of shot recovered per hour of equipment operation. In addition to reducing the cost of collecting shot, barriers placed just beyond the flight of targets are likely to confine shot recovery to mowed grassy fields containing few sticks, twigs, and leaves that must be removed, thus somewhat improving:

• the cost component of R related to removing debris;

• %Pb (the percent of lead in the material delivered to the recycler);

• F (the fee charged by the recycler).

92


3.1.2 Cost of Separating Lead from Debris

Another major component of R is the cost of separating lead from extraneous debris (stones, sand, twigs, leaves, etc.). This is necessary because %Pb (the per cent of lead in the material delivered to the recycler) and F (the fee charged by the recycler) are both adversely affected by the presence of such debris. Clearly, all the actions mentioned below do not apply to every range, nor are all equally practicable or beneficial at every range to which they may apply.

3.1.2.1 Clean shotfall zone

This is related to access to the shotfall zone discussed above. In addition to brush and trees hampering shot collection and increasing collection costs, such shot will also contain more twigs and leaves that must be removed than will shot collected from mowed grassy fields. While shot recovered from grass is also likely to contain some debris (roots, stones, etc.) that must be removed, and removing twigs and leaves is a small incremental cost, it is one that can be reduced by minimizing the need for collecting shot from brushy and wooded areas.

3.1.2.2 Backstop material

Backstops are sometimes constructed of native soil from the site. Soil that contains stones large and numerous enough to cause ricochet concerns is not used, but some backstops are constructed of soil that contains stones of a size that catch on screens along with bullets as the backstop soil is processed. Backstops should not be constructed with material containing such stones.

3.1.2.3 Backstop cleanliness

Anything on backstops other than spent bullets is potentially debris that will lower the value of reclaimed material and increase the fee F charged by recyclers for accepting and processing the material. Hence, range owners and operators should keep backstops and areas around them free of trees and brush to minimize twigs, nuts, leaves, and similar debris in the material removed from the backstop during lead reclamation. For the same reason, shooting at anything on the backstop other than designated targets properly mounted on appropriate target holders (e.g., cans, bottles, clay shotgun targets, and boxes) should be strictly prohibited.

3.2 Reclamation Firms

In free market economies, competition and profit potential will drive companies that reclaim lead to improve their equipment and processes. However, if reclamation jobs are few and profits are minimal, research and development will be slight and advances will come slowly. While reclamation firms will do their part to improve their capabilities, they must be aided by actions of other groups to collectively improve the economics for everyone so the demand for lead reclamation and recycling will increase.

The proprietary nature of many reclamation firms’ equipment and procedures makes specific suggestions difficult. However, one common step that should become universal practice is that when debris is removed from bullets recovered from backstops, that debris should be properly disposed of and not returned to the backstop. This will avoid future costs of rehandling the same debris.Some suggestions of possible actions by trade associations of reclamation firms are outlined below.

3.3 Organizations & Associations

Industrial organizations and trade associations are purposely the least clearly defined component of the shooting sports community addressed here. Cooperation among competing companies

93


is closely regulated and limited by many business considerations. Yet such cooperation on appropriate topics to mutual benefit is one purpose of industrial organizations and trade associations. It appears that increasing the reclaiming and recycling of lead ammunition is one such topic of mutual benefit that could be addressed by properly composed groups with appropriate scopes of activity. Many such activities could benefit from coordination with range owners and operators and or reclamation firms.While definition of such scopes is a task for the industrial organizations and trade associations forming the groups, some general suggestions for consideration include topics like those addressed below. Many topics might benefit from coordination with regulatory agencies on regulations and policies to achieve the common goal of increasing lead recycling. Such coordination might include agreements about interpretation of regulations and policies to make clear that certain activities to facilitate recycling will be considered acceptable within the applicable regulations or policies. Changes in regulations or policies, and perhaps even in laws, may be necessary and appropriate for the specific purpose of increasing lead recycling, and advocacy of such changes is within the purview of properly constituted and scoped industrial organizations or trade associations.

3.3.1 Coordination of Services

An association of reclamation firms might provide a centralized service to encourage range owners in a local area to coordinate lead reclamation activities so that several nearby ranges could be involved in immediate succession, thus minimizing and sharing costs of equipment mobilization and demobilization.

A central communication and information dissemination service on topics related to lead reclamation and recycling at outdoor shooting ranges, including non-economic incentives for ranges to recycle, might be beneficial to all parties in encouraging recycling.

3.3.2 Changes in Rules to Encourage Recycling

Sanctioning bodies of various shooting sports could review their rules for the purpose of explicitly improving the economics and encouraging lead reclamation and recycling at every opportunity. This might include a variety of topics as diverse as:

• Explicitly allowing trap fields to be arranged in slight arcs as described earlier to concentrate shot in a smaller area and thus minimize shot recovery costs;

• Offering incentives (e.g., advantageous advertising rates) to ranges that reclaim and recycle lead periodically.

3.3.3 Research & Development

Appropriate groups might coordinate, conduct, and fund research and development in support of lead reclamation and recycling at outdoor shooting ranges. Topics could be broad or specific – for example:

• Research on ways to increase recycling. When the automobile battery industry was first faced with very challenging environmental regulations in the United States, it developed a comprehensive recycling program, including environmental fees on all battery sales, that is very successful and considered a model program. There is at least the possibility for developing a similarly successful lead recycling program for outdoor shooting ranges.

• Research on backstop configurations and materials. For example, there are some indications that safe and effective backstops can be constructed of specific classifications of sand with very low-face slopes that make recovery of bullets less expensive than typical steeply-sloped backstop faces.

94


3.3.4 Lead Transportation

The cost T of transporting reclaimed lead to a recycler is a major variable in the overall cost of reclaiming and recycling lead ammunition. These costs might be reduced by establishment of centralized collection points at locations coordinated by an industrial organization or trade association. Such strategically located collection points would allow ranges or reclamation firms to transport reclaimed lead to a collection point closer than a recycling firm. When a sufficient amount of lead had been collected to optimize transportation costs, it could be taken to a recycler with the costs shared proportionally by the ranges or reclamation firms from which the lead originated. If the collection points were properly located in relation to ranges and recycling locations, perhaps on a railway or commercial waterway to minimize costs of transporting large quantities of dense material, the overall transportation cost to ranges or reclaimers should be less in many cases than if each transported its own lead to a recycler. Such a program might also allow some control over the timing of lead delivery to recyclers to help stabilize the price of lead that presently tends to fluctuate rather widely and unpredictably, making it difficult for reclaimers to determine whether the costs of a particular reclamation project will be covered adequately by the price they will be able to obtain for the lead after it is reclaimed.

The above thoughts are provided in the hope of stimulating discussion leading to practical actions to improve the economics and increase reclamation and recycling of lead from outdoor shooting ranges. Some of the above thoughts may prove impracticable or ineffective, but that should not detract from the fundamental purpose of stimulating activity.

4.0 Acknowledgements

This document is based on a 2004 report entitled Assessment of Technologies for Reclaiming Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. That report was written by Dr. Richard Peddicord, in association with OA Systems Corporation under subcontract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Brad Rock of SAIC provided technical review and oversight.

LEAD REMOVAL FROM MILITARY ARMS FIRING RANGES:

A PRESENTATION ABOUT A CLEANING PROJECT

Ulf Qvarfort, Sweden Professor in Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology,

Swedish Defence Research Agency

97


Lead Removal from Military Arms Firing Ranges:a Presentation about a Cleaning Project

Ulf Qvarfort, Sweden Professor in Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology, Swedish Defence Research Agency

Abstract

Extensive work is being conducted in Sweden to investigate and remediate contaminated military arms ranges in connection with the closedown of military bases. The impact berms contain high concentrations of lead in the form of whole bullets, a wide distribution of free fragments, smeared lead on the surface of the soil grains, and very finely attached particles.

During the period 1990 to 2000, more than 100,000 tonnes of material was processed from different firing ranges. The remediation method used was soil washing and gravity beneficiation, a technique similar to that used by the mining industry. This method was sufficient to lower the final lead concentration to just below 1000 mg/kg DS. This level is, however, too high to allow the soil to pass the Swedish EPA criteria (300 mg/kg DS), and most of the soil was therefore bound for an industrial or municipal waste deposit.

The environmental impacts of heavily used military shooting ranges are a current issue in Sweden. Traditional sand-berms are used as bullet traps on outdoor shooting ranges, and tightened environmental legislation has raised a question about the environmental risk that the shooting ranges constitute. Closely linked with the risk issue is the possible need for remediation or other environmental protection measures of the shooting ranges. The estimated remediation cost of a single range, considering the present national guideline values for soil contamination, is about €200,000. As there are 200 military shooting ranges in the country, the issue is of great economic importance.

Extensive work is being conducted in Sweden to investigate and remediate contaminated military arms ranges in connection with the closedown of military bases and building of environmental shooting ranges. During the period 1990 to 2000 more than 100,000 tonnes of material was processed from different firing ranges.

Typically, smallarms ranges consist of a firing line, target line, target berm and impact berm. The distance from firing line to the target line is normally 100 to 300 metres. The impact berm is designed to capture the fired projectiles. Long-term use results in lead level of about 1 percent by weight with isolated pockets exceeding 30 percent. In addition, metals are usually somewhat elevated in the area between the firing line and the target berm. Elevated lead levels have also been observed in the area behind the berm as a result of overshot. The high concentration tends also to be observed between 50 mm to 100 cm depth. Some of the berms

98


also contain sand from different generations according to various rebuilding operations in the past. In this type of berms, a high content of lead can be found down to several metres.

A major portion of lead in the berms contains lead in the form of whole bullets, a wide size distribution of free lead fragments, smeared lead on the surface of the soil grains, and very finely attached lead particles. There is also some copper and zinc contamination in the soil deriving from brass jackets surrounding the lead bullets. The brass concentration was, however, considerably less than the lead concentration in all tested berms.

In this study, remediation from several small-firing ranges is presented. The soils are fairly constant even if in some ranges the variation can vary from sand to clayey sand with large amounts of fine clay. A typical distribution curve for the soil in a berm can be seen in figure 1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

84210,50,250,1250,063

Cumulative Percent

Figure 1. Soil distribution from a firing berm.

The type of ammunition used in the investigated berms varies usually from calibres 5.5mm to 7.62 mm. In some places 20 mm (iron) ammunition has also been used.

Remediation method

Chemicals tend to stick to some types of soil more than others. For instance, chemicals stick more to fine-grained soils like silt and clay than to larger-grained soils like sand and gravel. The silt and clay, in turn, tend to stick to sand and gravel. Soil washing helps separate the silt and clay from the larger-grained, cleaner soils. It works best when the soil contains a much bigger portion of the larger-grained soils than the fine-grained ones. Soil washing can clean up a variety of chemicals, such as fuels, metals, and pesticides that can stick to soil. Before using soil washing, soil dug from the polluted area is sifted to remove large objects, like rocks and debris. The sifted soil is placed in a machine called a scrubbing unit. Water, and sometimes with detergents, is added to the polluted soil in the scrubbing unit. The mixture of soil and water is passed through sieves, mixing blades, and water sprays. This washes the silt and clay from the larger-grained soil and separates them.

The method used for remediation of the target berm was soil washing and gravity beneficiation, a technique similar to the method used by the mining industry. The method is usually based on screening, washing and gravity techniques. The case of the firing range soil differs, however,

99


from most ores because the heavy metals are not locked within the matrix of the particles and do not need to be liberated by grinding. A diagram of the technique can be seen in figure 2.

Figure 2. Flow sheet of the used method for remediation of small arm firing ranges.

The first stage (1) will be to screen the material through a 50 mm screen to produce a product without vegetation roots and other debris. The magnet will remove some of the 20 mm bullets. The minus 8 mm fraction after the washing barrel (2) will take away some of the 9 mm bullets. In the Scrubber (3) and Cyclones (4) most of the remaining bullets will be removed, together with the soil fraction of minus 4 mm. This represents less than 10 % of the soil material but over 90 % of the total lead content. The remaining part will then pass the Spirals (5) which gives the sand fractions (0.85 mm–2 mm, 0.075–0.85 mm, and less than 0.075 mm). These fractions are then processed at the Shaking table (5). After that there are two main fractions, one with more or less clean lead particles and fragments and one sand fraction < 2 mm.

Conclusions

According to the method the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. It may be possible to identify a size where bullets and large fragments could be collected simply by screening.

2. Gravity beneficiation is relatively effective in recovering free lead metal.

3. Residual lead, not recovered by gravity concentration, is attached to the soil grains.

4. The method used was able to lower the lead content in the remaining soil to about 800 to 1000 mg/kg TS.

5. This level is however too high to allow the soil to pass the Swedish EPA criterion (300 mg/kg DS) and more than half of the soil was therefore going to an industrial or municipal waste deposit. If the sand and gravel had been clean it could have been placed back on the site.

6. To lower the concentration the tailing produced by the gravity circuit requires acid leaching to be extracted.

7. The coast of the operation was about €100 /tonne and the Army spent about €12 million on the project.

LEAD RECLAMATION AND CLAY TARGET RANGES IN GERMANY

Anton Schönle, GermanyDevelopment Engineer

103


Lead Reclamation And Clay Target Ranges In Germany

Anton Schönle, GermanyDevelopment Engineer

Abstract

Anton Schönle, as the honorary head of a shooting stand, four years ago began to develop a mobile installation for recycling lead shot. His goal was to find an efficient way for cleaning up the earth wall at a shooting stand which caught all the spent lead shot. The result was a mobile installation based on a wet-mechanical density separation process, as used in sluice boxes for recovering gold. In his presentation, he describes in detail his developed installation. One problem in reclaiming lead is that the amount of it recovered is a lot larger than the amount of recovered gold. Consequently, the small riffles which are supposed to hold heavier particles must be emptied constantly and not at longer intervals as is the case in a sluice box. A conveyor belt with depressions constituted the most convenient solution to this problem. In front of the conveyor belt was placed a hopper which can be hydraulically lifted in order to compensate the height difference between conveyor belt and hopper. The hopper spills the substrate on the conveyor belt which transports the separated lead into a collecting bin. There is hardly any abrasion. Finally, the remaining mixture of water and substrate is separated into settling and floating substances. The settling substances are drained and transported to a heap by means of a bowl feeder. The floating substances are siphoned off, drained and deposited on a different heap by means of a rake conveyor. The washing water is circulated by means of a pump. Almost every source substrate can be processed with this installation. Stones of up to approximately 200 mm diameter are not a problem, and neither are grasses and their roots.

Shooting range operators are obliged to clean trap and skeet ranges in response to soil conservation and emission control legislation, and to provide roofed backstops to keep shooters safe from ricochet.

The lack of a lead reclamation technology with residual substrate utilization forces shooting range operators to dispose of their lead substrate in expensive waste sites or to have it cleaned by soil washing systems at equally high costs.

Our present legal situation does not require that grainy lead is analytically considered, although there is 50 percent by weight and more of grainy lead in 0-10 cm depth of the top soil in the main deposit area. Consequently, an analysis shows that the amount of lead, arsenic and antimony after the cleaning process is as high as before the cleaning process. However, in truth the total amount of lead has actually been reduced from 50 per cent by weight to approximately 0.5 weight percent after the cleaning process. Considering the fact that the potential for further corrosion processes has been eliminated after washing out the spent projectiles, this kind of analysis is neither coherent nor comprehensible.

104


The installation described in the PowerPoint presentation can be used to reclaim the following shot substrates from top soil:

• Lead shot from shotguns• Pistol projectiles • Rifle projectiles

– from sand backstops and – from steel backstops with rubber elements.

One problem, however, is the reclamation of lead rifle bullets from steel backstops with a flat impact angle. The largest part of the kinetic energy is converted into heat. As a result, the shot that hits the backstop is partly melted and spattered, oxidized and distributed over large areas by the remaining kinetic energy.

The installation needs the following modifications:

1. Increasing the degree of automation;2. Increasing the purity of the reclaimed projectiles (resolved); 3. Extracting fine sand from circuit water; 4. Extracting floating substances from circuit water (resolved); 5. Decreasing the contamination of the remaining substrate with lead, arsenic and antimony by connecting a small jig for the lead and sand that sticks to the separation belt.

In the case of sand backstops for pistol, shotgun and rifle, the retained projectiles should be preconcentrated in the source substrate in order to optimize their transport.

Outlook

Lead is mined from ores or extracted from recycling processes, at the moment primarily from the recycling of car batteries. As a result of the globally-increased demand for lead, the lead price has quintupled in the past three years. Currently one ton of lead costs $US3,800.

US Dollar / ton

105


This price now enables the development of a more efficient technology for the reclamation of lead which

• Reclaims projectiles in a very pure form;

• Enables the reutilization of the remaining substrate for backstops.

The operator of a shooting range can use the proceeds from the recycled lead to cover all costs. When reutilizing the remaining substrate as backstop material, there are no waste site costs which the shooting range operator would have to bear otherwise. Shooting range operators have low costs or none at all.

For recycled lead projectiles, the shooting range operator can get reimbursement. However, the size of it depends a lot on the level of the costs for extracting and transporting the substrate. For an easy extraction and transport of the substrate, the ideal backstop has a 2x2 metre-wide access which allows the use of medium-weight machinery.

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL SMALL ARMS RANGE SUSTAINABILITY TESTS

Gene Fabian & Greg Zynda (Aberdeen Test Center)Kimberly Watts & Brooke E. Conway (US Army Environmental

Command)

109


US Army Environmental Small Arms Range Sustainability Tests

Gene Fabian & Greg Zynda (Aberdeen Test Center), Kimberly Watts & Brooke E. Conway (US Army Environmental Command)U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, Military Environmental Technology Demonstration Center, 400 Colleran Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC), 5179 Hoadley Road, Bldg E4430, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 21010-5401

Abstract

The US Army has instituted testing of small arms range environmental management techniques to support training while also reducing the potential for off-range lead migration. The US Army Environmental Command partnered with Aberdeen Test Center to try three techniques described in the US Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Best Management Practices manual to reduce the offsite migration of lead by controlling soil chemistry and stormwater run-off. These techniques are currently under field testing to determine whether they are appropriate and economically feasible for implementation at military small arms ranges. The tests involve the demonstration of three EPA small arms range Best Management Practices: Topical Application of Lime, Targeted Lead Removal from Impact Berms, and Reactive Filtration of Stormwater Runoff. The paper reviewed the applicability of lead reclamation and results related to field demonstrations being performed at active small arms ranges at Fort Jackson and the US Military Academy.

With an overall view to increasing sustainability of particular shooting ranges, and using methodology on display in a US Army manual, tests were carried out on small arms shooting range best-practice concepts. This paper considers three specific means of cleaning unwanted metals from ranges. The first, the targeted removal of lead deposits by back-hoe, focuses on high-bullet-density areas in shooting berms. Later testing of stormwater assessed the validity of the method. The second method involves the application of lime as a lead mitigation technique, with runoff being tested afterwards. The third method involves a subsurface in-situ filtration system designed to take lead directly from the runoff water.

Introduction

The US Army Environmental Command (USAEC) and the Aberdeen Test Center have demonstrated three environmental best management plan concepts proposed in the Environmental Protection Agency Region Two in their Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual. We wanted to understand the technical performance as well as the cost of these proposed practices. We evaluated the three most promising and untested BMPs: targeted lead removal, topical lime application and an in-situ lead filter. We tested these BMPs for how effectively they reduced the lead run off from small arms ranges in the field, and collected cost information.

110


Targeted Lead Removal

This demonstration involves lead removal to mitigate the migration of lead from ranges. Removal was focused on bullet pockets, suspected areas of high lead concentrations. Tests commenced in March, 2007, and will continue through to March, 2008. A description of the technology and a summary of findings are provided below.

The majority of lead bullet fragments on a small arms firing range (SAFR) generally accumulate in the soil berm bullet pockets behind each target. By periodically removing the lead mass that accumulates in the bullet pockets, the potential for off-site migration of lead from the ranges by surface water and leaching may be reduced, assuming that the highest concentrations are in the bullet pocket areas. A demonstration is being performed to identify and implement targeted lead removal methods for the reduction of lead contamination by excavating soil containing significant amounts of bullet fragments in the bullet pockets and replacing it with clean soil.

The technology’s effectiveness is being measured by collecting and analysing surface water samples collected down-gradient from the test and control areas. Test controls include water samples collected from a control area taken throughout the test period. The control area is hydrologically separated from the test area. Surface and subsurface soil samples are being collected from the bullet pockets to monitor bullet pocket lead concentrations before and during the test.

The demonstration site is a 100-lane 25-metre zero range that is used frequently for military basic training. At this site, as is the practice on some military small arms ranges, maintenance personnel frequently removed the soil that eroded and settled at the base of the berm and spread it over the face of the berm to fill in eroded bullet pockets. Consequently, legacy bullets and bullet fragments were well mixed throughout the soil in the demonstration berm.

The demonstration test and control areas each have 50 bullet pockets. The targeted lead removal occurred only in the test area. Soil removal occurred in early 2007 and took less than two days to complete. Soil was removed from within the perimeter of the bullet pocket using a backhoe. The dimensions of each bullet pocket excavation were approximately 2.5 ft wide by 2 ft deep by 5 ft long. Excavated soil was used to fill in the control area bullet pockets. Clean soil was used to backfill the test area bullet pockets. Stormwater samples are being collected approximately monthly, depending on rainfall events.

The demonstration was started in the northern spring of 2007 and after evaluating several rounds of sample results, there is no evidence to suggest that this technique is effective at this site or similar ones with widely dispersed metals. Total and dissolved lead concentrations have remained consistently elevated in both the test and control areas. The demonstration will be monitored through March, 2008.

Alternatively, at another facility, small arms metals were measured quarterly in soil suction lysimeters and in groundwater wells over the course of one year between 2005 and 2006. This facility has little or no surface water transport due to high soil permeability, but rather rainwater infiltrates quickly and hydraulic transport is mostly vertical. After three rounds of lysimeter sampling, where concentrations in suction lysimeters beneath three small arms range berms showed tungsten concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million, the Army Corps of Engineers excavated all berms’ surface soils above an x-ray fluorescence reading of 150 ppm (three berms undergoing testing). Subsequent lysimeter values decreased substantially to tens of parts per million, with only a few exceptions. Groundwater concentrations in the one well with metals detections dropped an order of magnitude after the soil removal effort. Although the characteristics of lead and tungsten differ, the concept of metals removal is clear. Removing the source term decreases the degree of transport.

111


Figure 1: Focused lead removal around bullet pockets at the field test facility.

Topical Lime Application

Lime in the form of oxides (CaO), hydroxides (Ca(OH)2) or carbonate compounds (CaCO3) have long been used in the agricultural industry to maintain optimal soil pH for crop production. The US Department of Agriculture recommends that liming materials are most effective at neutralizing soil acidity when they are thoroughly incorporated and mixed with the soil to a depth of eight inches. However, balancing Army operational and training requirements with environmental management requires a treatment technology with the following characteristics: it must be easily applied, effective over wide areas, non-intrusive, and capable of being incorporated into normal range operations. A topically applied, no-till technology would be necessary to meet these requirements.

Under a no-till system, lime (CaCO3) could be applied to the ground surface, and not mixed in with the soil. It is hypothesized that most of the lime will become mixed with the soil because lime will naturally migrate downward into voids in the soil by rainfall-induced infiltration. However, some horizontal transport of particulate lime and dissolved lime particles will probably also occur during rainfall events. This will reduce the amount of lime available for vertical infiltration into soil voids, hence reducing the effectiveness of the lime to adjust the soil pH. There is no known previous study of topically-applied lime on active SAFR soils to stabilize the migration of metals.

With no quantitative data supporting soil pH control using lime (CaCO3) amendments as a stand-alone method of controlling lead migration, this best management practice (BMP) is not currently recommended in the Army Small Arms Training Range Environmental Best Management Practice Manual published by the US Army Environmental Command. However, the Army BMP manual does include the guidance for using lime as a soil amendment to promote vegetation growth and maintenance on small arms ranges. In this application, the vegetation provides the primary mechanism for controlling lead mobility. In addition, it has been hypothesized that lime amendment may also provide a secondary benefit by maintaining

112


a chemically stable environment that reduces lead corrosion in the soil. Lead is amphoteric, meaning it dissolves in both strong acid and base solutions. Consequently, maintaining a neutral pH between 6.5 and 8.5 on a SAFR can be an effective technique to minimize lead migration in the dissolved phase.

A laboratory study and field demonstration was recently performed to investigate and validate this concept. The objective of the study was to improve the quality of stormwater runoff leaving the field demonstration site by topically applying lime on a military SAFR. A military training range which has a variety of slopes and vegetation was used for the demonstration. A laboratory study was performed using soil from the chosen field site to determine optimal lime dosage and the effects of lime on metals migration from the soil.

With the optimal lime concentrations in mind for the chosen site, the field site was divided into three test cells and three control cells for a comparative assessment. Lime was topically applied to the test cells in two applications, once at the beginning of the test and the second time six months later (see figure 1). Surface water, pore water, soil, and plant samples were collected and analysed for lead, pH and other parameters over the course of the one-year field demonstration, to determine the effectiveness of the technique.

The one-year demonstration was completed in the northern summer of 2007. The pH of the soil and stormwater was generally higher in the amended areas compared to the control areas during the early portions of the study. The remainder of the data, including lead results, is being reviewed to determine the effectiveness of this lead mitigation technique. With continued lime applications and subsequent increases and stabilization of pH, topically applied lime as a lead mitigation technique could be beneficial in some circumstances. Final results are pending.

Figure 2: Topical application of lime at a rate of 5 tons per acre.

In-Situ Lead Filter

The majority of lead bullets and bullet fragments accumulate in the soil berm behind the targets. Lead concentrations in runoff water can be very high and eventually may enter nearby waterways. Directing runoff water along the berm to a subsurface lead filter or to a surface filter could dramatically reduce runoff water lead concentrations to below the Environmental Protection Authority Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) action level of 15 ug/L. A field demonstration is being performed that involves installing and testing lead filtration systems

113


to reduce lead migration by installing separate surface and subsurface lead filters using a reactive sorbent medium. The apatite reactive medium that was selected for the demonstration performed well during lab scale by reducing the dissolved lead concentrations below the MCL. If properly designed and maintained, a field scale filter has the potential to filter lead effectively for several years before requiring replacement.

The demonstration site is a 100-lane 25-metre zero range at a military range that is used frequently for basic training. The filter concept is being tested in separate surface and subsurface designs that were commenced in April, 2007. The technology’s effectiveness is being measured by collecting and analysing influent and effluent water samples. In each design, the effluent water passes through one foot of sand and two feet of apatite. The dissolved lead may be removed by sorption to the apatite or may be removed from solution by precipitation to form pyromorphite, a very stable lead phosphate compound. The following items are being addressed during the lead filter demonstration:

1. Determine from leachate and runoff the effectiveness of the filtration system’s lead removal;

2. Determine the maintenance required to keep the filtration system operating effectively. It is important that the filters do not become clogged;

3. Estimate how often the reactive media should be replaced;

4. Determine the disposal options for the media containing sorbed or precipitated lead;

5. Evaluate project management tasks. These items include determining a cost estimate (capital, operation, and maintenance), and site characteristics that affect management costs. Determine labour, range down-time, logistics for drum storage, transport and disposal, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for sorbent removal, if sorbent is considered a RCRA waste.

Based on six rounds of sample results from the influent and effluent sumps in the trench, the media and design appear to be working effectively. The dissolved lead concentrations from the influent sumps have ranged from 1 ug/L to 167 ug/L while the effluent concentrations have ranged from <1 ug/L to 19 ug/L. The dissolved lead concentration of 19 ug/L in the effluent was detected in the first round and levels have since remained below 7 ug/L.

In addition, the medium in the trench appears to be effectively removing antimony, a common component of bullets, from the solution in the trench. The dissolved antimony concentrations from the influent sumps have ranged from 7 ug/L to 62 ug/L while the effluent sump concentrations have ranged from <2 ug/L to 8 ug/L.

Two complete rounds of samples from the stormwater filter system were collected. During the first round of sampling, the dissolved lead concentrations from the influent and effluent were 38 ug/L and 1.9 ug/L, respectively. During the second round of sampling, the dissolved lead concentrations from the influent and effluent were 881 ug/L and 46 ug/L, respectively. These latest data indicate a possible breakthrough of lead in the filter effluent. The suspected problem may be a channelling of water flow along the walls of the filter housing, resulting in limited residence time with the reactive medium for a portion of the runoff flow. Corrective measures have since been implemented to direct influent through the centre of the filter system.

The medium in the stormwater filter system also appears to be effectively removing antimony from solution in the surface water filtration system. The dissolved antimony concentrations from two rounds of samples were 19 ug/L and 36 ug/L for influent while the effluent sump concentrations were <2 ug/L and 9 ug/L.

114


Thus far, it appears that a properly designed and constructed subsurface lead filtration system could be an effective technique to remove dissolved lead from runoff water at a military small arms range. The above ground filtration system, as currently designed, will need to reduce dissolved lead concentrations to much lower levels, and ideally below the US EPA Drinking Water Maximum Concentration level (MCL) of 15 ug/L, to be considered an effective lead mitigation tool. The filters will continue to be maintained and monitored through March, 2008.

Figure 3: Schematic cross section of the use of underground reactive material layer, in this case apatite.

Figure 4: Field photograph of the resulting underground filter system.

Conclusions

Range managers have many options for maintaining environmentally sustainable small arms ranges. The results of these demonstrations will offer cost and performance information on three specific BMPs for those ranges that may have environmental issues.

Session 3

Sound Attenuation

ACOUSTIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

OF AN ITALIAN SHOOTING RANGE

Giuseppe Forasassi, Italy

Department of Mechanical, Nuclear and Production Engineering, University of Pisa

119

Session 3. Workshop Proceedings - Sound Attenuation

Acoustic Characteristics and Environmental Impact of an Italian Shooting Range

Giuseppe Forasassi, ItalyDepartment of Mechanical, Nuclear and Production Engineering, University of Pisa

Abstract

After brief review of uses of a shooting range, in this paper the acoustic environmental impact is examined with reference to the requirements foreseen by the international, national and local regulations, laws and recommendations that are becoming more and more restrictive.

Taking into account the Italian situation, an example of a possible 150 m indoor shooting range is examined and a procedure is presented as suitable for the acoustic design and preliminary characteristics evaluation, in order to determine whether improvements are needed to cope with the legal requirements and achieve more comfortable conditions.

The proposed approach includes:

a) The experimental determination of acoustic characteristics of the firearms types to be used; b) The setting up of a model according to suitable acoustic analysis software on the basis of the general design features of a facility; c) Acoustic analysis of this facility in various configurations in order to evaluate the relative efficiency of possible sound absorbing materials and their disposition.

The numerical results do confirm the possibilities of substantially improving a shooting range’s acoustic response preliminary analysis use of suitable, commercially available sound-absorbing materials and their correct deployment in the facility.

1. Introduction

Authorized public shooting ranges are complex plants intended, designed and built to carry out, in a safe and legal way, several types of shooting activity with different types of equipment.

These facilities, in most European countries such as Italy, should be officially tested and approved by specific competent authorities in order to be licensed for legal operation in the uses for which they are intended.

Public shooting ranges’ main foreseen uses and applications may be:

a) Military bodies or security and police personnel for drilling and qualification tests with several types of issued firearms;

120


b) Civilian gun use training for purposes, such as: • Self protection (in Italy only for licensed individuals); • Hunting training, tests, and plain amusement;

c) Firearms testing and setting up; checking (mostly the sighting system and general operation) by commercial dealers before delivery to the customer, or by the customer after the delivery;

d) Sporting activities publicly organized at various levels (training and local, national and international competitions).

2. Shooting Ranges – types and present legal rules in Italy

Limiting the present examination to the points b to d above, the civilian uses in particular of sporting and defensive firearms or devices with rifled barrels and single shot or semiautomatic operation, the ranges in Italy (as in most of the other European countries) may include several types of separate facilities, with different characteristics. These are mainly suitable for shooting applications such as:

• Handgun shooting mostly at distances up to 25 m• Small calibre (.22 LR) rifle shooting up to 50 m• Large calibre (greater than .22 LR) rifle shooting up to 300 m• Air guns (long and short-barrelled) shooting at 10 m

These facilities may be of the open (actually surrounded by high walls) or completely closed (indoor tunnel) types, in accordance with whether the top cover is present or not. In any case, all the lateral and terminal walls are rather high and structurally robust, in order to block any possible direct bullet trajectories and, with the particular floor or soil configuration normally required, to avoid any reasonable possibility of bullet ricochet.

Most Italian shooting ranges (at present about 250) are owned and controlled by the Government through the Ministry of Defence. Some ranges, but only a small number, are owned and normally commercially operated by private organizations or citizens.

From the viewpoint of sport and institutional use, the previously mentioned public ranges are operated by the UITS (Unione Italiana Tiro a Segno), which is affiliated to the CONI (Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano).

From a legal standpoint the Italian ranges and the activities carried out within them are regulated by:

1) The specific detailed rules set up by the Army Engineers Inspectorate, for all the structural, functional and safety aspects;

2) The specific rules set up according to international guidelines by UITS-CONI for all the characteristics and operational modalities pertaining to the sporting deployment of the facilities;

3) The present Italian laws and police regulations (sometimes depending also on local particular requirements) for everything related to public security;

4) The present Italian laws and safety regulations pertaining to working and living areas, facilities and specific devices.

121


A large proportion of Italian public shooting ranges were built in the years between 1860 and 1900 on what used to be the outer borders of the towns. Of course, the nearby civilian settlements have much extended their dimensions, so at present often those limits have come a lot closer, or the dwellings have completely surrounded the ranges.

This common situation especially worsens the problems of ranges’ acoustic environmental impact as the maximum allowable Sound Pressure Level (SPL) values are stipulated within the legal limits fixed for populated areas. Moreover, even if the shooting ranges are situated in proximity of the city borders in areas classified as “green” and dedicated to development of sporting facilities, the SPL limits apply not only to the fixed maximum values for the area but also the maximum variation (∆SPL) of the SPL relative to the undisturbed situation (that is in the absence of shooting activity); this last requirement is often more stringent than the ones related to the maximum absolute values.

The following Figures 1 – 3 present an example of an Italian shooting range of the previously mentioned type including, beside the others, the main historical building, handgun and rifle facilities (50 m, 25 m and 10 m shooting lanes); a high power rifle facility (200 m lanes ) and an indoor range (50 m lanes). In Fig 4 the possible development of that range is shown, taking into account the surrounding free area availability and the present trends of the patrons’ sporting interests.

Fig. 1 – Overall shooting facility layout

Fig. 2 – Front and West side views

Fig. 3: 10 m air guns and 50 m small calibre shooters’ stations

VIA

AU

RE

LIA,

PIS

A C

EN

TRO

SA

N R

OS

SO

RE

VIA

LE D

ELLE

CA

SC

INE

VIA DEL TIRO A SEGNO

122


Fig. 4: Architectural view of the possible range development

As already mentioned, among the rules and recommendations indicated briefly under the previous points 2 – 4, the ones related to the acoustic risk and the environmental impact are particularly important and emphasized by the authorities and the population living near to ranges.

In the period from January to November, 2006, the UNI (Italian National Unification Organization) endorsed and introduced into Italy several international technical recommendations (UNI 17201-1, 2, 4) related to the acoustics in civilian shooting ranges.

In particular those recommendations allow for the numerical or test evaluation of the acoustic energy of several firearms with calibres as high as 20 mm. These data may offer useful input in the acoustic simulation models and software for the design of the ranges. For instance, the previously mentioned rules of the Army Engineers Inspectorate (Tech. Directives DT P-1 ed. 2005 and DT P-2 ed. 2006) for shooting tunnels in relation to acoustic risk indicate the following general limits:

1) Shooters’ area: noise level of 130 dB(A) (average level of 3 measurements at 1, 2 and 3 m from the noise source);2) Shooting director’s box centre: maximum level of 85 dB(A);3) Nearby rooms: maximum noise level of 70 dB(A) at 1 m from the walls;4) Nearby office rooms: maximum noise level of 65 dB(A) at 1 m from the walls and ceiling.

It is clear that the acoustic design of a new range or the updating of an existing one can be helped by dedicated numerical simulation codes. They can help to outline the acoustic characteristics of a facility during the design phase of its development, testing the relative effectiveness of different solutions, so the acoustic responses can be optimized.

In what follows a procedure is proposed and preliminarily applied. This approach includes:

a) Experimental determination of the foreseen firearms acoustic characteristics; b) Numerical modelling of the facility, according to suitable acoustic analysis software; c) Acoustic analysis of the facility response in various configurations, to evaluate the relative efficiency of possible sound absorbing materials and their disposition in the facility itself.

123


3. External and Internal Acoustics Tests of Guns and Environment

On a 50 m rifle range, SPL measurements were carried out by means of a Bruel & Kjaer 2230 Phonometer.Ventilation system analysis

Table 1 - SPL measurements in the mentioned shooting facility

From the range area official acoustic classification (Class II in this particular area’s Municipality regulations) the sound pressure level should be:

Day level: 50 dB Night level 40 dB.

The Equivalent Day Continuous Sound Level (LEQ)d, derived from the measurements for instance shown in P3 and P7 in this table, resulted in > 60 dB.

On this shooting range, SPL values were actually measured during firing tests of the following firearms:

• Sig Sauer 226 pistol, calibre 9x21;• Savage, calibre rifle, .22 LR;• Enfield P14 rifle, calibre .303 Br;• Beretta PS 200 shotgun, 12 gauge.

Measure

Points

Sound Pressure Level SPL(dB A)SPL Undist.

EnvironmentSPL during shooting

Pistols RiflesP1 62 89.5 92.3P2 60 69 82P3 60 68 72P4 60 73 76P5 60 71 74P6 60 76.5 79.7P7 60 84 87

124


The measurements were also carried out with the Bruel & Kjaer 2230 Phonometer positioned 1.5 m behind the shooter at shoulder level obtaining the results indicated in Tab. 2.

Firearm Type Sound Pressure Level (Db A) At Various FrequenciesFrequency (Hz)

63 Hz

125 Hz

250 Hz

500 Hz

1000 Hz

2000 Hz

4000 Hz

8000 Hz

Pistol, Sig Sauer 226, cal. 9x21, barrel 112 mm

87 102 108 117 121 122 119 117

Rifle, Savage, cal. .22LR, barrel 530 mm

67.7 71 79 85 90 93 95 96

Rifle, Enfield P14, cal. .303 Br, barrel 630 mm

89 103 111 117 121 122 119 118

Shotgun, Beretta PS 200,12-70 gauge, barrel 660 mm

89 96 98 114 107 119 120 118

Table 2 - SPL (dB A) measured values produced by four different firearms

The measured results were used for a rough preliminary characterization of the sound sources in the following numerical simulations and analyses with the calculation code Raynoise 3.0.

4. Acoustic Analysis: Numerical Simulation

An example of a range simulation analysis was performed with the Raynoise 3.0 code that allows simulations with the evaluation of several acoustic performance indexes, in open and closed environments, displaying the results as tables and maps suitable for comparison and optimization of different design solutions. The shooting facility under consideration was an indoor range of the type foreseen for the possible updating and development of the range shown in Figs 1- 4.

To set up the performed simulation of the facility it was necessary to:

1) Assemble a suitable three-dimensional model of the facility structure;2) Determine the materials’ characteristics; 3) Define and characterize the sound sources;4) Perform the acoustic analysis through the numerical simulation.

Fig. 5: Example of an indoor shooting range considered for the numerical analysis

125


In the above maps (Fig. 7) rather low level SPL values are shown in the spectators’ area and in the Director’s control boxes (supposed to be separated by 3-cm-thick ballistic glass walls), in comparison with high level SPL – up to about 120 dB – in the shooters’ positions and nearby areas.

5. Numerical Simulation Analysis: Plant Acoustic Improvements

Just to test what might be the improvements in the considered facility sound response in terms of SPL maximum values if suitable sound absorbing materials are used, the following two types of materials are considered with the characteristics indicated by the suppliers:

A) Allmofon/B panels (polyuretanic resin plates, 2.5 cm thick, Fig. 8) which were to be placed on the shooters’ stalls, insides the shooting boxes.

B) Fiber–C panels (wood fibre panels, 5 cm thick, Fig. 9) which were to be placed on the walls and ceiling of the shooting lanes and the internal part of the shooters’ area.

Fig. 6: Mesh of the shooting facility used for the numerical simulations: internal shooters’ area mesh

Fig. 7: SPL (dB A) isocolor maps as measured in the shooters’ station of the reference facility for three sound sources (12 gauge shotguns firing at the same time)

126


In the following diagrams it is possible to compare the SPL (= 10log I/Io) values calculated with and without the acoustic isolation of the range walls and ceiling.

The positive effects of the isolation increase when the reverberation field is larger than the direct one – that is, with the increasing of the distance ratio of the measure point (mp) to shooter and the mp to room walls.

FREQUENCIES (HZ)

Coeff. 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

as0.07 0.12 0.29 0.6 0.9 0.86 0.83 0.8

Table 3: ALLMOFON - B. absorption coefficient versus sound freq. (as = absorbed and reflected sound energies ratio)

FREQUENCIES (HZ)

Coeff. 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

as 0.11 0.2 0.4 0.65 0.82 0.81 0.78 0.75

Table 4: FIBER–C. absorption coefficient versus sound freq. (as = absorbed and reflected sound energies ratio)

Fig. 9 – FIBER- C sample

Fig. 8 – ALLMOFON -B sample

(10 a)

127


6. Conclusions

In this present report an updated methodology is indicated for the analysis and, possibly, the improvement of the acoustics of shooting ranges and reduction of their external environmental impact, and also for the comfort of the shooters themselves and the bystanders, as well as the necessary fulfilment of current rules and technical recommendations.

Some mainly qualitative results, obtained in a preliminary numerical analysis of a 150 m indoor closed tunnel range, seem to indicate that the goals may be reached with the careful use of suitable materials in correct design and a preliminary optimization carried out with up-to-date methodologies.

Moreover, numerical code simulations indicate that the use of sound absorbing and insulating materials on walls and ceilings may allow for a sensible improvement of range acoustics, and assure the reduction or elimination of the sound risks both inside and outside the shooting range.

(10 b)

(10 c)

Fig. 10: Comparison of the SPL values (dB) with and without wall and ceiling noise isolation, as evaluated in the measure points 15 *(see Fig 10b) and 330 *(see Fig. 10c corresponding to the positions indicated in Fig. 10a in the shooters’ area mesh.

SHOOTING IN A CITY,THE EXAMPLE OF THE ROSE RANGE IN BERLIN

Helmut Kinsky - GermanyExecutive Director, DEVA

131


Shooting in a City,The Example of the Rose Range in BerlinHelmut Kinsky - GermanyExecutive Director, DEVA

Abstract

Joachim Streitberger reports on behalf of Helmut Kinsky (both are Directors of DEVA, the German Testing and Proof Institute for Hunting and Sporting Firearms) on the old DEVA Shooting Range in Wannsee, part of the German capital, Berlin.

This shooting range was created in 1928 as part of the Institute and operated till the end of World War II. After the war it was taken by the American forces and used as a military shooting range. The commander-in-chief at this time was General Rose, and the range was named after him, “Rose Range”. As a result of protests from local residents living within a distance of 350 m from the range, the American forces invested millions of Deutschmarks to reduce the sound levels. Given back to the DEVA in 1994, the institute itself invested several hundred thousands of Euros for further improvement of the sound attenuation. Shooting currently continues on 126 tracks, at 25, 50, 100 and 300 m. The Range is used by sport shooters, hunters and police forces. Thirty thousand rounds are fired per day without exceeding the allowed sound levels. The presentation shows the existing means and gives an overview of the effects and the costs of it.

DEVA was originally the abbreviation of Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Handfeuerwaffen, the German Testing Institute for Shoulder Arms, or, to use a more modern term: small arms.

Today it is the abbreviation for: “Deutsche Versuchs- und Prüf-Anstalt für Jagd- und Sportwaffen” – or, in English: the “German Testing and Proof Institute for Sporting and Hunting Firearms”, a registered private association. (Obviously it is getting more and more complicated, like everything else.)

132


This transparency shows the headquarters of DEVA in the beginning of the 1930s. It was at that time a relatively big association with more than 40 employees.

The DEVA shooting range was created in 1928 on a location near the famous Lake Wannsee, outside Berlin, in a forest. It is relatively big with an area of 70,000 m² or 630,000 sq ft.

At the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin, the shooting range was used for smallbore and clay target competitions.

Already in the first years of its existence, big problems with the neighbours were reported, because of the shooting noise.

After World War Two the shooting range was taken over by the American Forces in Berlin and used as a training area and shooting range.

In 1989 – in this sense DEVA was lucky that the iron wall didn’t break down earlier – the American Army constructed two halls for about €7 million or $US9 million to minimize the still-existing neighbourhood complaints about the shooting noise.

Transparency 6 gives an overview of the range.

On the right-hand side we see the big Hall 1, constructed by the US Army, in the upper part of the transparency the original and partly reconstructed ranges of DEVA.

After the end of the Cold War the range was given back to DEVA in 1994 and again used as a private shooting range from 1995.

The range is used by members of DEVA – a registered association – and intensively by law enforcement agencies (police and customs).

What are the disciplines shot on the range?

They vary from education of the candidates for a hunting licence to hunters training for the hunting season, sport shooters following ISSF rules as well as IPCS disciplines, policemen training privately and – as mentioned – to a great extent, law enforcement agencies.

133


Today the range has

9 – 100 m lanes3 – 300 m lanes42 – 25 m lanes76 – 50 m lanes 1 – Steel Rabbit1 – Running Boar

That means 130 lanes are in use.

Another 40 lanes exist, but are not reconstructed and therefore are not in use at the moment (50 m, 60 m and 200 m lanes).

At the moment we are asking for permission to shoot clay targets in Hall 1, to make the total shooting range more attractive.

Now, about 10,000 rounds per day are fired.

The maximum number of rounds fired per day does rise to about 27,000.

And here is the problem.

As the picture shows: The shooting range is surrounded by forest – but, at a distance of 350 m is the Bismarckstrasse, a high-class living area, with villas owned by influential people. That’s why there were noise problems from the beginning.Let me now go a little more into the details to show how DEVA managed to calm down the protests and to make the shooting range at least tolerated, if not embraced.

I begin with the first and second halls constructed by the US Army in 1989.

134


Hall 1 is about 60 m or 200 ft deep and approx. 120 m or 400 ft long. Hall 2 has 25 m lanes in it, and is about 35 m wide.

We have covered the costs of these two halls, so I only want to briefly show the construction and give an impression of the room. I think a construction like this cannot be an example for private associations.

These halls are mostly used by law enforcement agencies, so they are not used from one defined shooting position – not the case with the other examples.

This transparency shows the second section of Hall 1 – so-called Hall B – mostly used by law enforcement agencies. As you can see, the walls are covered with sound absorbing material – rockwool – and the whole hall is covered by aluminium elements that contain sound absorbing

material as well. That means shooting is not indoor, because there is no roof on the hall – no ventilation is needed – but because of the sound absorbing elements, the sound is minimized very efficiently.

135


This picture gives a better impression of the sound absorbing elements, aluminium frames with sound absorbing material inside.

Now to the 100 m ranges – 9 lanes, or 3 sections with 3 lanes each. These lanes were constructed by DEVA in 2005.

This shows where the lanes are located on the range. These lanes are mostly used by hunters and big-bore shooters, which means there is a lot of sound to attenuate.

As these lanes were used from one defined shooting position, a different approach than in Hall 1 and 2 could be used.

The goal was to attenuate both sources of sound, the sound created by the bullet moving with supersonic velocity, and the blast at the muzzle of the rifle.

The report is the sound made by the bullet flying with supersonic velocity. This sound accompanies the bullet as long as it is flying faster than 340 m/s, so attenuation is needed for the whole flight path from the firing position to the backstop.

136


To reach that goal, the whole range was covered with rock wool – hardrock 2, hanging in squares of 1.2 to 1.2 m. The walls also are covered with rock wool.

The next picture shows one section of three lanes.

Below is a more detailed picture of the construction of the squares of rock wool, hanging in squares of 1.2 to 1.2 metres (4 feet by 4 feet).

137


Fig. 20 gives a different impression of the same section, on account of the different light.

Because the 100m lanes are only used from one firing position, it is fairly easy to minimize the muzzle blast.

The first 10 metres of the lanes are totally covered with rock wool, as we will see on the following transparency, with one consequence that I have to stress, and that is the need for ventilation.

Figures 21 and 22 show that the wall and ceiling are covered with rock wool, to absorb the sound emitted from the muzzle.

For the ventilation of the shooters’ positions a solution was found, fairly simple but effective:

Air sacks were installed behind the shooters to blow air onto the range through carefully defined holes, to create a laminar air flow with a velocity of 0.25 to 0.30 m/s from behind the shooter in the direction of the target.

Fig. 20

Fig. 21 Fig. 22

138


Fig 25 shows the air sacks out of operation.

Fig 26 shows the working ventilation.

Fig. 25 Fig. 26

The construction cost per one section of 3 lanes, calculated at 2007 prices – the price for rock wool increased a lot – is €230,000 (about $US320,000), including ventilation, sound absorbing measures, walls and bullet catchers.

A short remark on the 300 m lanes.

Fig. 29 shows where they are located.

Fig. 29

3 x 300 m

139


In contrast to the 100 m lanes there are no means for minimizing the report (the sound made by the supersonic bullet). Only the muzzle blast is attenuated.

It is a sound chamber, similar to the 100 m lanes.

The next figure shows, there are more 25 and 50 m lanes, used by several associations. The red arrow marks the position of an IPSC range, reconstructed by the German Association of IPSC shooters. Their President, Friedrich Gepperth, has reported on these in an accompanying paper.

Again: all these activities take place at a distance of 350 m (400 yards) from the closest – high-class – housing area.

140


Under German Legislation the permitted sound level at Bismarckstrasse in Wannsee is 55 dB(A). This is not the level of a single shot; this is an assessed level that takes into account the special characteristics of a noise impulse.

The measured sound level at Bismarckstrasse (measured and assessed in the same way) is 50 dB(A), which means we could shoot 3 times the number of rounds without getting to the limit. But even if we could shoot more, this is the level we want to stay under, because we’ve learned that this is a level accepted by the neighbourhood.

The facts:

Sound attenuation means reducing the emitted sound level by more than 20 dB(A).

The scale of decibels is a logarithmic one. A reduction of 3 decibels means a doubling of the number of rounds it’s permissible to shoot.

A specific example:

The allowed number of rounds fired without sound attenuation measures, at 50 dB(A), is 270 per day, and at 55 dB(A), something around 750 rounds per day.

The officially-allowed number of rounds now is 27,000 per day.

The comparison with and without sound attenuation, when reducing 20 dB(A) is – 1:100

In case you want to check it, this is the formula our engineer gave to me, to prove it.

I decided to believe him.

141


It is a fact, at least in Europe, that more shooting ranges die from noise problems than from other reasons. I hope you find it as interesting as I did, when I learned the details of the DEVA range, what can be done, what can be achieved even in a delicate setting.

RESPONSES TO SHOOTING NOISE PROBLEMS IN THE UK

John Harradine, UKDirector of Research, BASC, UK

145


Responses to Shooting Noise Problems in the UKJohn Harradine and Amanda Holroyd, UKDirector of Research, BASC, UK

Abstract

Problems over shooting noise are growing in the UK, partly as tolerance to noise in the countryside decreases and partly because the UK’s environmental legislation makes clay target shooting, as well as other types of shooting, particularly vulnerable to complaints and the imposition of restrictive measures. A survey has been conducted of shooting grounds throughout the country to identify the nature of these problems and the measures used both to prevent noise problems from arising and to manage the grounds that are facing such problems. A review of the measures is presented.

1. Introduction

There is no doubt that in the UK, if not in other countries, there is a growing intolerance of shooting noise. This may be due, in part, to the high density of people in this small country and the frequently inevitable proximity of shooting sports to non-shooting people, their homes and places of work. But it is part of a growing sensitivity to noise from any source, industrial, commercial or recreational, in both urban and rural environments, and the intent of government to reduce the impact it has on citizens’ right to enjoy their property without undue interference from others, and on their health and wellbeing.

There are social aspects as well, in that there is a belief that the countryside is, or should be, a quiet place, and people moving from urban and suburban areas to live in the countryside expect to find it so.

There may also be anti-gun and anti-hunting elements, whereby those who oppose the ownership and use of firearms, or who oppose the shooting of wildlife, take issue with the noise from shooting sports and use it against those interests.

Environmental legislation provides the legal framework for the management of noise from clay target shooting, and a recent non-statutory advisory document provides specific guidelines to local government authorities to address shooting noise in their areas of jurisdiction. Both of these frameworks create problems for shooting sports.

2. Regulatory framework

2.1 Planning controls

Clay target shooting in the UK, as one of many uses of land with potential adverse impact on the environment and people in its vicinity, is usually but not always subject to planning control by local government authorities. Generally, for fewer than 28 operational days per year, statutory planning permission is not required, just the authority of the landowner on whose

146


land it takes place. Above that frequency of operation, planning permission is required. This, in turn, may include measures to control the shooting (and other operational) noise levels from the site. Such measures may or may not be appropriate or helpful to the site managers but they have to comply with them in order to operate as a shooting ground.

For grounds operating under the “28-day rule” there are no restrictions imposed unless a complaint is received by the local authority or the authority itself chooses to investigate the site. If such a ground wishes to add some structure or substantive development to support its shooting activities it may then require planning permission, at which point it becomes at risk of restrictions being imposed on its noise output.

2.2 Statutory nuisance

The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 established the concept of a statutory nuisance being caused by noise emanating from any “premises”, which clearly includes noise from shooting grounds, and how that nuisance is to be controlled. To create an offence, shooting noise must either be likely to cause injury to health or amount to a nuisance at common law (i.e. law based on precedent rather than, say, statute law). Most often it creates a private (as opposed to public) nuisance, whereby it constitutes some damage arising from the unlawful interference with a person’s use of his land. It does not necessarily have to add measurably to background noise levels, rather it must be intrusive and out of character with the local area. The frequency and nature of clay target shooting makes it vulnerable to being so described.

The interference must be unreasonable and substantial; mere annoyance, abnormal sensitivity, individual taste or preference should not be enough to initiate formal proceedings. The character of the area should be considered in each case.

A local authority can identify noise-producing sites and apply legislative controls but usually it responds, as it must, to a complaint from members of the public. One complaint is enough, and, however long the enterprise has been in operation or however big and locally important it is, that complaint can have a major impact on its future.

The local authority is required to investigate the complaint and make a decision whether to initiate proceedings. The decision-making process may or may not involve taking shooting-noise measurements. If it is decided that a statutory nuisance is being caused, or is likely to occur or recur, the authority has to issue a statutory noise abatement notice which will dictate what measures must be taken to reduce the nuisance. This may range from a general directive to reduce noise levels, through reduction to a specified shooting noise level, to closure of the shooting ground. Failure to comply is a criminal offence and individuals are liable to a fine of up to £5,000 (€8,400), and businesses up to £20,000 (€33, 500).

Usually there is no discretion but there is an important defence for a ground of “best practicable means”. This covers the design, construction, maintenance and the manner and periods of operation of plant, machinery, buildings and structures appropriate to managing shooting noise levels from the ground. They must be viewed in relation to local conditions and circumstances, the current state of technical knowledge and the financial implications for the ground managers. If the “best practicable means” defence is successful the ground may be able to continue operating.

There is an appeal procedure if shooting grounds believe either the imposed restrictions are unreasonable or due process has not been followed by the local authority. This can be helpful but inevitably is expensive, requiring legal and acoustic specialists, especially for small grounds, and it is by no means certain to succeed. Throughout the process of dealing with noise problems, there is little time made available for amicable resolution to be found.

147


2.3 Non-statutory guidance

Over some 20 years the main UK clay target shooting organization, local authorities and the government’s environment department tried but failed to develop an accepted non-statutory code of practice for managing shooting noise. In the mid-1990s the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, after commissioning research, and on behalf of the regulators, began developing a new guidance. After six years of development and consultation, and its final rejection by the clay target shooting interests, the CIEH published its “Clay Target Shooting – guidance on the control of noise” in 2003. It set out how clay target shooting can minimize noise nuisance, and provided a recommended method for measuring and subsequently assessing shooting noise. It is intended to guide local authorities and other interests to resolve conflicts arising from shooting noise.

Among the many recommendations is a noise buffer zone, in front of the shooting positions to noise-sensitive premises, of at least 1.5km, unless topography or other factors allow it to be shorter. Where complaints are likely, then shooting days, times and duration are to be restricted, as is the frequency of “major events”. Advice is provided on noise barriers, different types of cartridge, and other measures. The most problematic recommendation, however, relates to shooting noise levels (SNL). Based on the commissioned research, it states that “Annoyance is less likely to occur at a mean shooting noise level below 55dB(A) and highly likely above 65dB(A)”. SNLs between these limits may or may not cause annoyance and are to be considered as appropriate for each site.

While the CIEH recognises that “annoyance” is not the same as “nuisance” it has become clear that local authorities, often having no other source of guidance, are increasingly applying these SNL thresholds in dealing with shooting grounds subject to noise complaints. They tend to err towards the lower end of the indeterminate 55-65dB(A) range. At least one court has set a precedent in its judgement on a specific case, namely 57dB(A). Such levels make for considerable difficulties for many clay target grounds to comply yet ensure a viable business.

BASC, and others (noise consultants), continue to challenge the basis for setting the recommended SNL limits, believing that the research on which they are based provides no scientific support for them. Increasingly they are being used to control noise from shooting grounds and other types of shooting. In some situations it is difficult, indeed, to endorse the continuation of the shooting noise levels as evidently they are unreasonable within the locality. In others, however, unreasonable pressures are being applied against shooting interests without sufficient regard for the business, social, economic and environmental benefits that the shooting enterprise brings to the area.

3. Current responses to shooting noise problems in the UK

3.1 BSSC survey

On behalf of the British Shooting Sports Council, BASC, supported by the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA), is surveying shooting grounds in the UK to determine the scale and nature of shooting noise problems, and the measures being used to address them. Some 420 grounds, affiliated to either BASC or CPSA, have been circulated with a questionnaire seeking information. Other grounds will be included as and when they are identified.

The findings are based on returns from 174 grounds (41%) received to date. More will be added as non-responders and other grounds are contacted. For the time being this should give a good indication of the current situation in the country as a whole but it may be biased to some extent. Consequently the results should be regarded as provisional.

148


3.2 Results

3.2.1 Clay target shooting

Two-thirds of the grounds are rented or leased from another landowner, the rest being owned by the shoot manager. This increases the vulnerability of the majority of grounds to pressures against shooting.

Approximately half the grounds operate under the “28-day rule”, the rest operating under planning permission, primarily but not exclusively for their shooting operations.

The frequency of shooting varies from 12 to 364 days a year, averaging 114 days.

The types of clay target discipline operating on the grounds are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Frequency of clay target disciplines on UK shooting grounds

Discipline %

Skeet(English, Olympic, American)

41

Sporting(English, FITASC, Compak)

33

Down-the-line 13

Trap(Automatic ball, Olympic, Double, Universal)

9

Other 4

Skeet clay-target shooting is relatively compact and potentially able to be contained in order to reduce its noise outputs. Sporting disciplines, however, which provide a variety of targets at different angles and distances, are widely used in the UK. These result in shooting in many different directions and greater difficulty in containing the resulting noise.

3.2.2 Shooting noise problems

A quarter of the shooting grounds reported problems with shooting noise. It is possible this figure over-estimates the frequency of problems as grounds with noise problems might respond more positively to an inquiry into shooting noise.

The great majority of those with problems had them caused by complaints from neighbours.

A quarter of those grounds with noise problems are either operating under a statutory noise abatement notice or are being threatened with one.

There is a suggestion that problems are more often associated with those grounds operating on their own land, and those operating under some form of planning permission. This latter relationship would be consistent with the process of requiring planning permission thereby exposing shooting grounds to more restrictions.

149


3.2.3 Management of shooting noise

For the grounds operating under a noise abatement notice, measures imposed under the notice mainly included restrictions on day and times of shooting, cartridges used, number and location of traps, and numbers of guns allowed. One had an SNL limit of 55dB(A) and one faced complete cessation of all shooting.

For 90 grounds operating either under imposed or anticipated restrictions, or managing their shooting in order to prevent shooting noise problems from arising, the main measures used are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Mitigation measures for shooting noise problems

Mitigation measure %

Bunding, barriers, screening 33

Shooting direction 24

Cartridge type 23

Times, frequency of shooting 21

Using topography, landscape features 13

Enclosed shooting stands 12

Avoiding special days and events 9

In a preliminary inquiry of this sort there is some uncertainty over the reported mitigation measures in both what the stated measures actually mean and how they are applied. A number of different measures may be applied on the same ground to different shooting disciplines. There is, also, no indication of how successful they are at present.

A superficial examination of the reported measures, however, together with knowledge of some grounds, enables a commentary on some of the measures used and issues raised.

Bunding/screening – Some form of physical barrier is widely used to try to contain shooting noise within the shooting ground itself. Earth bunds are in place on some grounds but their development can be expensive, they take time to establish and they can be blocked by refusal of planning permission. Their design and correct siting are critical to their success. SNLs leaving the ground apparently have been reduced by 15dB(A) or more. Hard screening materials or structures can be both helpful and problematic if not constructed or sited appropriately. Soft screening with straw bales and walls can be effective but can be unsightly, unstable and short-lived as the straw deteriorates, and may not be permitted for aesthetic reasons. Screening by trees is widely believed to be effective, but, in reality, is unlikely to reduce significantly transmitted shooting noise (and may effectively intensify it). It can be aesthetically beneficial, however, and prevent line-of-sight between noise source and noise-sensitive premises, thereby diminishing the perceived problem.

150


Shooting direction – Often a simple and effective measure, where it can be altered, to avoid noise-sensitive premises.

Cartridge type – Commonly used to bring about, or to be seen as trying to bring about, reduced noise levels or perception of the noise, through lower weight cartridges (typically 28g specified), or subsonic cartridges. Little is known, however, about just what reductions in SNL are achievable by such cartridges, at distance from the shooting ground rather than at the muzzle of the gun; how the noise characteristics and their perception are changed by such cartridges; or how reduced noise levels are balanced against performance of the cartridge in the field, especially at competition level. Actual or perceived impact on shooting performance will militate against consumer uptake.

Times and frequency of shooting – Such restrictive measures are frequently sought by local authorities, or imposed by grounds themselves, in order to reduce noise complaints, and can be effective in practice.

Using topography and landscape features – Situating a new shooting ground in isolated or confined locations (such as disused quarries), or where line-of-sight to sensitive premises is disrupted and shooting noise dispersed or directed away from such premises, is not often possible but can prevent problems.

Enclosed shooting stands – Enclosing shooting stands in noise-absorbing surfaces or structures addresses the problem virtually at source. Several grounds use various types of containment, incorporating sound insulation material, and designs are improving but costs can be substantial. One ground has successfully implemented a program of enclosed stands but at some £3,000 (€5,000) each. A roofed enclosure appears to offer the most effective noise reduction, and development is under way for a simpler, modular system to provide help for grounds elsewhere with noise problems. See Appendix 1 and 2.

Avoiding special days and events – This is a simple and commonsense measure that probably should be considered more, namely the avoiding of religious or civic days and events when sensitivities to shooting noise are likely to be higher.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Inevitably, problems for shooting sports from shooting noise are going to increase. Society increasingly will demand noise-reducing measures from shooting grounds if they are to continue operating in a crowded country, notwithstanding the benefits they bring to that society.

Shooting ground managers need to wake up to these potential problems and address them seriously. New grounds will have to put in place noise-reducing measures from the start to help ensure any required planning permission is obtained, and to prevent noise problems from arising. Existing managers need to be alert to the real possibility that even if they have operated for years without problems, the situation can change overnight. A newcomer to the locality can lodge a complaint and trigger the statutory response from the local authority. A particularly large shoot or unusual period of intensive shooting can strain the normal tolerance of neighbours to the point of objection. The law in the UK is heavily weighted in favour of the complainant, and a long-established shooting ground, valued otherwise for its social, economic and environmental benefits to the locality, can find its future severely threatened.

Information, technical and legal advice, and direct assistance where required, need to be available to managers to help them address their problems in an effective and most acceptable manner. Representative bodies can go only so far in providing support for their members, after which specialists in acoustic, legal and engineering matters may need to be engaged.

151


Management plans were not mentioned in survey returns although some grounds no doubt, in effect, are working to one. Greater promotion of their benefit is needed, both for new ground development and the management of existing grounds, so as to prevent noise problems from arising.

Few grounds surveyed to date appear to have put community relations high in their management priorities. Some have gone to considerable lengths to keep local residents informed of their activities, listen to their concerns, involve them in social events at the ground, and contribute themselves to the community’s own and charitable events. Their day-to-day shooting business is more assured then otherwise it would have been.

Developing a close working relationship with local authority planning and environmental personnel is also key in helping to head off and then manage any pressures for noise-reducing restrictions that are sought. Some grounds have made this a successful priority and have reaped the benefits.

On technical aspects of the issue there remain a number of points. In many cases there appears to be a lack of understanding as to just what reduction in SNLs is achievable by specific mitigation measures, or how the reduced noise levels are perceived by potential complainants. Much faith appears to be put in reduced-load and subsonic cartridges without knowing how they can contribute to managing shooting noise, or affect shooters’ performance. In an environment where maximum SNLs are being set by local authorities there is a need to be able to predict what a given set of mitigation measures will achieve towards meeting that imposed SNL, to help achieve cost-effective solutions, and enable grounds to remain viable.

Developments in bunding and screening technology are making progress in this direction and, although often expensive, may well prove to be an important way forward. Technological improvements in cartridge design and performance, and perhaps in gun barrel design as well, warrant further attention, but they are associated with potential customer resistance and problems of national and international competition regulations.

Each shooting ground’s noise problem is likely to be unique as its particular location, topography, human neighbours and shooting practices will be different from those of every other ground. In this respect standard designs or mitigation recommendations are unlikely to be helpful. What is needed is a range of management options so that a ground, with appropriate help and guidance and through a sound management plan, can select those measures which are most likely, in cost-effective terms, to address successfully its specific shooting noise problems, while ensuring that the shooting business remains viable.

AN APPROACH FOR SOUND ATTENUATION ON OUTDOOR RIFLE AND HANDGUN RANGES

Friedrich Gepperth, GermanyPresident of the German Shooters Association (BDS)

Member of IPSC, the Federation of German Sportshooters

155


An Approach for Sound Attenuation on Outdoor Rifle and Handgun Ranges

Friedrich Gepperth, GermanyPresident of the German Shooters Association (BDS) Member of IPSC, the Federation of German Sportshooters

Abstract

If outdoor ranges face environmental problems, in most cases noise is one of the biggest.

There are basically two types of ranges for handguns and rifles:

1. A shooting range with a fixed firing line – as with most of the traditional shooting disciplines and with silhouette shooting;

2. A multiple-distance range with many different shooting positions necessary for IPSC, PPC, Bianchi Cup-style and Cowboy Action shooting.

Under certain circumstances the noise level of rifle and handgun ranges can be reduced drastically by means of a coffered ceiling construction consisting of wood planks and mineral wool plates. Very often this can be erected without recourse to professional builders.

With the fixed firing line range the effect of the noise attenuation construction can be extremely high, even with a reasonably low investment. But also with the multiple distance range it is possible to dampen the shooting noise to an astonishing low level, only by means of a very dense ceiling construction. This is more expensive and the loss of sunlight on the shooting range is higher.

Introduction

Many outdoor ranges face noise problems. In order to reduce them, several different noise attenuation systems have been developed. For most shooting clubs the commercial systems offered are far too expensive. Thus, today, the majority of the German shooting ranges are indoor. While these solve the noise problem, they generate a lot of other problems, especially regarding sufficient ventilation.

A very successful approach for outdoor ranges to reduce or even to solve the noise problem is to install a coffered ceiling construction consisting of wood planks and mineral wool plates. It can be done at reasonable cost, with the construction carried out by the shooting clubs themselves, because it is a relatively simple process and the materials are widely available. The designs described in this paper have now been installed in quite a few ranges in Germany and attenuate the shooting noise level very effectively.

156


General points of the construction

The ceiling construction is always a cross-pattern consisting of wood planks and mineral wool plates. The right-angled running lower wooden plank is always fastened to the upper plank by rafter purlin anchors. The upper and the lower planks always carry the mineral wool. See the picture at the right:

Detail of the fixture of the lower plank to the upper wooden plank by rafter purlin anchors

Detail of the fixture of the mineral wool to the wood

The basic requirement for the system’s installation

The basic precondition for the installation is that there are either side walls or safety baffles available in order to fasten the ceiling construction. If both side wall and safety baffles are in fact available, it is normally better to use the one with the shorter span.

The components of the system

Specifications of the mineral wool:

• apparent specific gravity (raw density): 150kg/m³• synthetic resin-bound• thickness: 8 cm

157


Products available in Germany:

• Manufacturer: Rockwool Name of product: Hardrock II

• Plate sizes (small plate): 0.60 m x 1.00 m x 0.08 m or large plate: 1.20 m x 2.00 m x 0.08 m (the dimension of 4 small plates)

• Manufacturer: Saint Gobain Isoverer G+H AG

• Name of product: Metac FLP 2 Duratec

• Plate sizes, large only: 1.20 x 1.90 m x 0.08 m

• The small 60x100 cm plates are by far the easiest to handle. The larger plates must sometimes be cut in half at least

Wood: Resinous wood planks, grade two; in addition, screws, dowels, nails and rafter purlin anchors.

The two systems for the basic part which carries the ceiling

Depending on the distance either the side walls or the safety baffles are apart from each other, there are two systems which can be used for carrying the ceiling:

a) The short span system The maximum span this can bridge is 7.5 m

b) The long span system

The maximum this system can bridge is up to 15 m

Details of the short span system:

It is a pure wooden plank and mineral wool plate construction

In this case it is always the upper one of the wooden planks that is the basic part.

The upper plank is either transverse to the firing direction if fastened on the side walls (as can been see on the picture to the right), or else the upper is in the same direction as the firing line if fastened on the safety baffles.

This pure wood/mineral wool construction can be used if the maximum span for the upper basic part is not above 7.5 metres.

158


The following data give an idea of the relationship of span and profile of the upper wooden plank:

Free span the upper wooden plank has to bridge

Profile of the upper wooden plank (thickness in cm x height in cm)

up to 5.5 m 6 x 26 cm

up to 6.0 m 8 x 26 cm

up to 6.5 m 10 x 26 cm

up to 7.0 m 10 x 28 cm or 12 x 26 cm

up to 7.5 m 14 x 26 cm

The profile of the right-angled running lower wooden plank is always 5 x 25 cm

Details of the long span system

It is a construction with rolled steel I-beams as the basic part

For spans longer than 7.5 m it is necessary to use (rolled) steel I-beams as the basic part under which the wooden and mineral wool ceiling is fastened. In this case one can construct ceilings bridging up to 15 m.It is useful to set the I-beams not more than 5.5 m apart so one can use wooden 6x26 upper planks and as always wooden lower planks with the 5x25 cm profile. But of course the I-beams can be set up to 7.5m apart. Then the profile of the upper wooden planks is 14 x 26 cm.

Here too, the profile of the right-angled running lower wooden planks is always 5 x 25 cm

The size of the cross pattern – the crucial point for the effectiveness of the system

159


The crucial point for the effectiveness of the noise attenuation of the ceiling construction is the size of the cross pattern – the size of the opening. Because of the dimensions of the available mineral wool plates it is very useful to work with either one small (narrow) or one large (wide) size of the cross pattern.

In the picture above one can see the long span system with 13.5 m long I-beams which are fixed at the safety baffles. The bullet path is along the direction of the I-beams.

The large opening

The large size uses two single 60x100x8 cm mineral wool plates in fixed, upright position side by side resulting in a mineral wool rectangle of 120x100x8 cm. This rectangle can also be produced by cutting a large plate in half. Including the wooden planks and considering the different thickness of the upper wooden plank the size of the vertical opening of the construction is from 114 x 112 (in this case the thickness of the upper plank is 6cm up to 106 x112 cm (in this case the thickness of the upper plank is 14 cm)

The small opening

The small size uses a single 60x100x8 cm mineral wool plate fixed in an upright position. Including the wooden planks and considering the different thickness of the upper wooden plank, the size of the vertical opening of the construction is from 54x52 cm (in this case the thickness of the upper plank is 6cm) up to 46x52 cm (in this case the thickness of the upper plank is 14cm).

Costs

The main advantage of the approach discussed is that the costs are still in the range many shooting clubs can afford if the main part of the required labour is done by the members of the club. This is quite possible.

The following calculations are just for the basic material, mineral wool and wood. If a construction is selected where I-beams are the basic part the cost of steel must be added.Data of components

1. Mineral wool: one square metre costs about €10 without VAT;

2. Wood: about €250 per cubic metre without VAT.With the small opening one can assume for a single square metre of the mineral wool and the wood a cost of about €40-43, without VAT;With the large opening one can assume for a single square metre of the mineral wool and the wood about €24-28 without VAT.

160


The analysis of the individual noise situation of a given shooting range and the selection of the right pattern

Each outdoor shooting range has its own level of acceptable noise the range can generate to avoid problems with the neighbourhood.

If the site is located far from inhabited areas there is probably no need for noise reduction. In Europe this is only true for a minority of the outdoor ranges.

It is assumed that with all rifle and pistol shooting ranges, the use of supersonic ammunition should be possible.

If there is a noise problem we have two range types in general to separate:

Range Type 1Rifle and pistol ranges with a single fixed firing line (single distance ranges)

Here the question is: over which distance from the firing line do we need the noise attenuation ceiling construction?

There are two different kinds of noises from shooting: the muzzle blast and the supersonic crack. The muzzle blast is usually much louder.

Before considering the installation of a noise attenuation system there is an important question: is it sufficient to dampen the muzzle blast or is it necessary also to attenuate the supersonic crack along the bullet path to the backstop?

There is a very simple way to find this out where silencers are legal. The type of firearm intended for use on the specific range is selected. With rifles or pistols usually a magnum calibre arm is selected. It has to be the one which represents the highest noise level. On it, an effective silencer should be fixed, and shots should be fired from the intended firing line to the backstop.

a) If the result of the test firing with the silencer is sufficient, all that is needed is the coffered ceiling construction with the narrow pattern (small opening) for the first 15 to 20 metres right beyond the firing line (assuming the lower end of the mineral wool plates is not higher than 2.50 m above the floor of the range);

b) If the measured or heard noise is still too high it is necessary to install the coffered ceiling construction over the whole range.

As a given rule it can be assumed that it will be necessary to install the coffered ceiling construction with the narrow pattern (small opening) for the first 15 to 20 metres right beyond the firing line to dampen the muzzle blast to a very large extent. After this it is possible to switch to the wider pattern construction. The latter is totally sufficient to reduce the heard noise from the supersonic crack very effectively.

Range Type 2

Pistol ranges or in some rare instances rifle ranges with multiple firing positions (multiple distance ranges)

It is obvious that in this case the coffered ceiling construction will probably be needed over all the area around the shooting positions, because the loud muzzle blast arises at each shooting position, which by definition can be anywhere with this type of range. For example, if a 25 m pistol range is intended for IPSC shooting, there is probably no choice other than to install the ceiling construction from 0 to 25 m.

161


The question now is which pattern, the small or the large opening, is necessary with Range Type 2? This depends on the noise level which is acceptable. In the case of a multiple distance range where the shooter is standing below the ceiling during the shooting, what we can say is: the narrow pattern (small opening) is extremely effective as against the wide pattern (large opening) if it is used for a multiple distance range. The wide pattern is far better than no attenuation system at all but from all we have learnt until today the difference between the two patterns on a multi-distance range is large.

There are two special points to consider.

Loss of sunlight

Beside the costs of the ceiling system – those of the components and of the installation – there is something one should know beforehand: through the loss of sunlight by the ceiling system the range will become darker. If shooting from a fixed firing line to just one backstop which is not below the ceiling construction, this will certainly be no problem at all. If, however, the shooting is on a multi-distance range, and possibly at targets further in front of the main backstop, the difference to an open range can be quite remarkable.

No need for a ventilation system

In Germany if an outdoor shooting range with a fixed firing line has a noise problem – and most ranges do – the current recommendation is to cover the first 15 to 20 m beyond the firing line with some kind of closed ceiling, in many cases made out of concrete. Whatever the material is, if there is total cover of this long distance beyond the firing line there is a requirement to install a ventilation system in the shooting stand. If the open coffered ceiling system is installed, even the one with the narrow pattern, this installation of a ventilation system can be avoided.

Outlook

Regarding the range of Type 1 the cross pattern system may not be the only useful and easily constructed solution. This writer is currently testing a system which consists of mineral wool plates hanging in a 90° angle to the bullet path. This could save a lot of material and work and maybe also be very effective. A report will follow when results are available.

SHOOTING MORE AND MAKING LESS NOISE

Dietrich Kühner, GermanyNoise Auditor

165


Shooting More and Making Less Noise

Dietrich Kühner, GermanyNoise Auditor

Abstract:

The ISO Standardization of Shooting Noise (supported by AFEMS) makes the task of handling shooting noise straightforward for engineers and officials with respect to its physical nature, to noise reduction possibilities and, last but not least, to the management of its impact, which is the content of Part 5 of the ISO Standard. This standard describes how the limiting values expressed in decibels can be translated into a quota count limit, which gives the maximum number of shots fired by the loudest combination of firearm, ammunition and shooting position without surpassing the limiting values. The quota count of a combination is the product of the number of shots of this combination and a weighting factor, the calculation of which is standardized in Part 5.

Based on the usage of the range, expressed by the number of shots fired in the different combinations, this allows the calculation of the daily quota count and a subsequent comparison with the limit. There are different possible usages of the range, changing weather conditions, etc., and the method can be employed to ensure that noise impact in the neighbourhood remains at a minimum.

1. Introduction

AFEMS has asked the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) to implement a standard on shooting noise which will ensure that within the EU, shooting noise is measured and calculated using the same procedures and methods. This work is now finalized in the form of the ISO 17201 Noise from Shooting Ranges, Parts 1 to 4:

1. Sound source energy – determination of muzzle blast (IS)

2. Estimation of source data – muzzle blast and projectile noise (IS)

3. Guidelines for propagation calculation (DIS)

4. Prediction of projectile sound (IS)

IS stands for International Standard and DIS for Draft International Standard.

These standards describe the best available technology to measure or to calculate the sound resulting from a specific combination of arm and ammunition fired either within a shooting shed or outside. It modifies ISO 9613 Part 2, which describes sound propagation and shielding for the specific needs resulting from the high directivity of the muzzle blast noise and the features of the projectile sound.

Producing a standard which would actually regulate the assessment of shooting noise and its limiting values was not possible, because this falls under the responsibility of member states.

166


However, a standard was in fact written, but without standardizing the assessment, and this deals with the management of the shooting noise in the neighbourhood.

This standard provides guidance for noise management of shooting activities, to control the noise impact outside the shooting range but within its neighbourhood, with two goals:

• keep the impact below the local limits

• allow a maximum of shots

This is described in the ISO DIS 17201 Part 5:

5. Noise management of shooting ranges (DIS)

2. Management concept

The idea is to manage the range in such a way that a maximum number of shots is possible but with the least impact on the neighbourhood.

2.1 The basic situation

The best way to explain the subject is the example given in the standard. Fig. 1 presents the situation at the shooting range in Isosburg.

Fig. 1: Shooting range. The 25 m range is a closed shooting hall not to be included in the management scheme.

167


Two trap and two skeet stands dominate the site. However, the 100 m and 50 m range are also important. The 25 m range is in a closed hall and is consequently excluded from the following considerations.

The shooting range is situated in the countryside as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: Shooting range and its neighbourhood in Isosburg

Four areas can be identified, which are used for residences or industrial purposes. Under the local by-law the limiting value, Lv, has to be compared with the long term Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, Leq, plus a formal impulse addition of 16 dB. At site IO1, for the daytime between 6am and 10pm, the limiting value Lv of

60 dB(A)

accounts for the fact that the area for which the site IO1 is representative allows residential as well as commercial use, and has a residual noise of 49 dB(A) due to road traffic and commercial activities. The sites IO2 and IO3 represent residential areas; the limit is set for IO2 to

52 dB(A)

and for IO3 to

55 dB(A)

accounting for the higher residual noise produced by the main road in front of this area with 58 dB(A) during the daytime. Site IO4 represents an industrial site. The limit there is

70 dB(A)

The residual noise is in the same order of magnitude.

These limits have been accepted by the local authorities and are part of the certificate of approval.

168


2.2 References

The sound exposure level, LAE, is the 1s equivalent level of one shot. To characterize the situation in the neighbourhood, the sound exposure levels, LAE, of the firearms frequently used in the different ranges are estimated under long-term sound propagation conditions. This must be done by a specialist using ISO 17201 Parts 1 to 4. The impulse addition used for the calculation is 13 dB, accounting for the fact that the 16 dB are only measured for distances of 50 m or less.

The result is given in Table 1:

Type No.

Type

Position Firearm Ammunition IO1 IO2 IO3 IO4

K LAE LAE LAE LAE

dB dB dB dB

1 100 m long barrel .30-06 53.6 49.7 50.3 56.6

2 100 m long barrel .22 LR 45.2 42.3 42.3 48.2

3 50 m short barrel .44 Rem.Mag 56.2 45.8 46.1 59.2

4 50 m long barrel .22 Hornet 46.4 34.2 36.9 49.4

5 Trap1 shotgun 720 mm 24 g 51.3 47.7 48.0 55.6

6 Trap1 shotgun 680mm 24 g 51.8 48.3 48.9 56.2

7 Trap2 shotgun 720 mm 24 g 53.8 50.9 51.6 56.8

8 Trap2 shotgun 680 mm 36 g 55.2 52.3 52.7 60.3

9 Skeet 1 shotgun 680 mm 24 g 54.6 49.0 51.1 59.6




Table 1. Sound exposure levels of the firearm-ammunition combination in 6 positions

The loudest combination of position, firearm and ammunition for each site is chosen as a reference.

The reference levels of the loudest shots are denoted in red in table 1 and are repeated in Table 2

Site Reference LevelRL

dB(A)IO1 62IO2 52IO3 52IO4 67

Table 2. Reference levels RL

169


The quota count limits, QCL, state the maximum number of shots which can be fired using the loudest combination. They can be obtained from the following equation:

Eq(1) QCL = 10 0.1*(Lv-RL-dI) *T/to

where to is 1 s and T daytime in s and dI the impulse addition, which varies from country to country. In Italy it is 3 dB. The fact that the quota count for IO3 and IO4 are the same is simply coincidence.

Site Limiting value Quota count limitLV QCL

dB(A) 1IO1 60 1821IO2 52 2887IO3 55 5760IO4 70 5760

Table 3. Limiting values and quota count limits

Table 3 represents a translation of the legal limits into numbers of shots by specific firearms, ammunition and position combinations on the range.

The last thing needed for the management is the specific weight, W, of each shot fired on the range. The specific weights depend on the site I and are expressed by the number of shots which are equivalent to one shot in the loudest combination:

Type No. TypePosition Firearm Ammunition IO1 IO2 IO3 IO4

K W(1)k W(2)k W(3)k W(4)k

1 1 1 1

1 100 m long barrel .30-06 8 2 2 16

2 100 m long barrel .22 LR 64 8 8 128

3 50 m short barrel .44 Rem.Mag 4 4 8 8

4 50 m long barrel .22 Hornet 32 64 32 64

5 Trap1 shotgun 720 mm 24 g 16 4 2 16

6 Trap1 shotgun 680mm 24 g 16 2 2 16

7 Trap2 shotgun 720 mm 24 g 8 2 1 16

8 Trap2 shotgun 680 mm 36 g 4 1 1 8

9 Skeet 1 shotgun 680 mm 24 g 8 2 1 8




Table 4. Weighting factors

170


The meaning of Table 3 is as follows: 8 shots on the 100 m range using a long-barrelled firearm and .30-06 ammunition (k=1) have the same effect at site IO1 as one shot in combination k=12. However, at site IO2 and 3 this holds for 2 shots and for site IO4 it is 16. Using the shotgun with a barrel length of 680 mm and 36 g ammunition allows 4 shots on Trap 2 compared to 1 using Skeet 1.

To ensure that on any day the limiting values are not transgressed, the following relations must be fulfilled for each site, i :

Eq(2) quota count limit (i) >quota count(i)=

∑=

m

kkk iWn

0)(/

where nk is number of shots of type k. For a typical day where 2000 shots are fired using Trap1, 24 g and a 720 mm barrel, and Trap 2 with the same firearm and 2000 shots in addition to 2000 shots using Skeet 1 with 24 g and a 680 mm barrel, one obtains, using table 2, the quota count (QC) for each site:

Type Nok

ηmax W(i)kQC1 QC2 QC3 QC4

Trap 1 shotgun 720 mm (k=5)

2000 / 16 4 2 16 125 500 1000 125


2000 / 8 2 1 16 250 1000 2000 125

Skeet 1 shotgun 680 mm(k=9)

2000 / 8 2 1 8 250 1000 2000 250

Total of quota count 625 2500 5000 500

Quota count limits 1821 2887 5760 5760

Percentage 34 86 87 9

Table 5. Example of the usage on a specific day

For the 2000 shots with a 720 mm shotgun at Trap 1 a quota count for site 1 of 2000/16=125 is reached, where a quota count QC of the same firearm and ammunition reaches 250 on Trap 2, double the number, which means that practically each shot on Trap 2 counts twice as much as compared to a shot on Trap 1. If all shots were to be fired on Trap 2, the QC2 reaches 3000 and QC3 6000, and the limits would be transgressed on both sites. If all shots could be fired on Trap 1 the quota counts would be reduced by 500 shots for site 2 and 3. If the shots fired on Skeet 1 were to be fired on Skeet 2, table 5 reads:

171


Type Nok

ηmax W(i)kQC1 QC2 QC3 QC4


2000 / 16 4 2 16 125 500 1000 125


2000 / 8 2 1 16 250 1000 2000 125

Skeet 1 shotgun 680 mm(k=9)

2000 / 8 2 2 2 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total of quota count 1375 2500 4000 1250

Quota count limits 1821 2887 5760 5760

Percentage 74 86 70 22

Table 6. Example of the usage on a specific day using Skeet 2 instead of Skeet 1

Using Skeet 2 leads to a reduction of 17 % at site 3 and a doubling, 34 % to 74%, at site 1. An increase of 9 % is observed on the average over all 4 sites. However, the noise load would be more equally distributed.

Table 2 for the weighting factors has been calculated assuming that the muzzle velocity of the shotgun ammunition is 420 m/s. If, instead, ammunition is used with a muzzle velocity of 380 m/s the quota count in table 3 and 4 would drop to half the values given – or, formulated the other way around, the number of shots fired could be doubled without reaching the quota count limits.

If the approximate capacity needed for a specific day is known, a range usage program leading to the smallest noise load for the neighbourhood can be calculated in advance.

2.4 Recording

Recording the number of shots fired is central to the management. If all shots fired on the range are recorded according to the above scheme the noise load of the neighbourhood can be given on a day-to-day basis using an Excel program, which implements the above tables and the formula given in eq.1.

Using a simple microphone and a standard off-the-shelf computer, the number of shots fired on the range can be recorded automatically. Using such a system can ensure that all shots are properly recorded. More sophisticated systems can record the usage of the different facilities on the range and continuously display the ambient noise load in the neighbourhood, which may be useful for the management on a daily basis

A simple automatic counting of the shots and its control has been accepted in Germany by a Court of Justice including the usage of the range, depending on wind directions. The sound propagation attenuation does depend considerably on the wind direction. The level difference between being either upwind or downwind may be more than 20 dB at a distance beyond 500 m. This can be important for specific sites.

However, there is an additional benefit. The limiting value in Italy is defined as a long-term equivalent level, which means that the limit does not apply for each day separately. As long as it is ensured in the period of operation during daytime that the hourly equivalent levels,

172


plus the 3 dB impulse addition minus the residual noise, are less than 5 dB, it would become acceptable to operate the range for some days above quota count limit as long as the average is below. Furthermore, it should be noted that the residual noise depends on the time of day which means that this can also be used to optimize the noise management.

3 Conclusion

With the finalization of the 5 ISO standards on shooting noise, all the instruments are now available to calculate the ambient noise levels produced by a shooting range on a daily basis. If no measured data are available for the sound emission of the arms-and-ammunition combinations used, the sound emission data and directivity can be calculated from the technical data such as load, barrel length and projectile muzzle velocity. This includes handloaded ammunition. The sound propagation from the open field case such as in trap and skeet shooting, as well as the far more complicated non-open field cases, are described in Part 3, which is now available as a draft standard. This way, all the necessary tools are available to predict the sound emerging from a shooting range and manage the range accordingly, in view of the local rules and regulations. It is obvious that a range managed like this, if it can account for the noise on a day-to-day basis, is in a far better position with respect to the neighbourhood and the local authorities than one not so managed.

SOUND, AND HOW TO REDUCE ITS INTENSITY LEVELS

David A. Tomlinson, Canada

175


Sound, And How To Reduce Its Intensity Levels

David A. Tomlinson, Canada

Abstract

Many shooting ranges are closed down pursuant to complaints from people living somewhere nearby. Some of these complaints are supportable, while others can be shown by objective measurement to be less than traffic noise. This paper addresses the deeper technical elements of the origins of sound from the operation of a firearm, and begins with the molecular motion it initiates. This is differentiated from the energy wave that discharge produces. The energy wave is shown to provide to the distant ear drum that stimulus which a human being recognizes as noise. Energy is capable of being absorbed. It is possible for people managing shooting ranges to take advantage of this fact, and of the further fact that the wave is always weakening, right from its point of origin at the muzzle of the firearm. The paper then goes on to look at possible strategies to reduce the sound levels perceived at the point of hearing.

It is an old and sad story. The shooting range has been there for many years, but new housing has grown up around it, and now the neighbours are complaining about the noise. They want to close down the range. Given today’s climate of opinion about the social value of recreational shooting, they may succeed.

Frequently, such noise complaints are unjustified. The actual intensity of the sounds coming from the shooting range should always be measured as it appears at the location of the complainant. Doing that with a rented sound intensity measuring device often proves that the measured sound intensity from shooting at the range is lower than the measured traffic sound intensity coming from the road that is nearest to the complainant’s position.

In other cases, the measured sound intensity level is high enough to justify the complaint. The initial level of defence is always to measure the actual sound intensity level as it is heard at the location of the complainant.

Regardless of which of the two situations is the one the operators of the shooting range must deal with, it is obvious that the lower the measured sound intensity level, the less likelihood of complaints, justified or otherwise. Consequently, every shooting range should do its utmost to reduce the intensity of shooting sound levels before they leave the area controlled by the range operators.

Reducing sound intensity levels requires technical knowledge that most shooters do not have. This paper is designed to provide a non-technical person with an understanding of the principles of sound level reduction: what works, how it works, and why it works.

The object of the exercise is to reduce the intensity of the sound of muzzle blast at the listener’s ear (at a distance from the origin of the sound). It is necessary to understand just what happens

176


at the point where the sound originates, what happens as the sound moves outward, and what happens at the eardrum of a distant listener.

The sound (muzzle blast) originates at the place where the base of the projectile leaves the barrel of the firearm. The type of firearm is unimportant – handgun, rifle or shotgun.

When the firing pin of a cartridge firearm or the hammer of a cap and ball firearm crushes the priming mixture in the primer of a cartridge or on the nipple of a cap and ball firearm, the priming mixture ignites. A flash of flame then passes through a hole to ignite the main charge of smokeless powder or black powder. Then the main charge of black or smokeless powder ignites and begins to generate hot gases by the burning of black powder or the deflagration (rapid decomposition) of smokeless powder.

The ignition of the main charge designates the instant of the beginning of the pressure curve. The pressure curve is a graph depicting the position of the base of the projectile in the horizontal axis and the pressure at the base of the projectile in the vertical axis.

Initially, the pressure, as depicted in the pressure curve, rises very quickly to a maximum. During this phase of pressure rise, the projectile begins to move forward, but the condition is not simple acceleration. It is surge, which is somewhat different. It is acceleration of acceleration, not just simple acceleration.

Acceleration and surge are both conditions where the projectile is moving forward at an increasing velocity that can be measured in multiples of the force of gravity (g force levels) at the instant of time being considered.

Surge differs from acceleration by the fact that during surge, the acceleration g figure is constantly increasing. In conventional mechanics, surge is commonly called the starting transient, and is usually dealt with empirically. The starting transient is generally not regarded as something worthy of close study. It is known that resistance to surge (caused by the inertia of the projectile) is much higher during surge than it is during simple acceleration. The inertia of a projectile being subjected to surge is much higher than the inertia of a projectile being subjected to simple acceleration.

During the surge period (which ends at the highest point in the pressure curve) the projectile accelerates from a stationary position (where 0 g was applied) at 1g, 10g, 100g... This period is brief. Its duration and characteristics depend on the type of powder being used and the resistance to surge of the projectile and the friction at the projectile-barrel interface.

During the acceleration period (which begins at the highest point of the pressure curve and ends as the projectile leaves the muzzle) the projectile accelerates at 100g, 90g, 80g, 70g, 60g, 50g... This period is longer. Its duration and characteristics depend on the type of propellant being used and the resistance to acceleration of the projectile and the friction at the projectile-barrel interface and the length of the barrel.

There is a little-known branch of mechanics known as Davis mechanics that offers mathematical formulas to calculate what happens during surge. It is quite important in understanding what happens to a projectile inside a firearm’s barrel during surge, and the very strange effects on a projectile that coming out of the barrel within the surge period can have on the projectile, including heavy longitudinal distortion of the projectile.

Before discussing methods of reducing sound levels, it is important to realize that human perception of sound is tricky. Human ears detect sound, but human brains affect what is heard by processing the signal coming from the eardrum before recognizing it as sound. For a time, the writer lived on a hill outside the city of Edmonton. On still summer nights, one could hear the noise of the city, a constant grumbling sound. My guests from the city were puzzled

177


by it, and could not think what it might be. When I told them it was the sound of the city, an aggregate of every noise being produced in it, they were surprised that they could not hear the city when they were in it. That was not a mystery. It was a demonstration of how the human brain filters out meaningless sounds that were actually heard by the ear, in order to allow the brain to concentrate on meaningful sounds.

The perception of sound by a human brain is not the same as the perception of sound by a human eardrum, or by an electronic sound intensity measuring device. However, it is the electronic device that provides accurate and objective information on the real levels of real sounds, and therefore it is the information that can be used in a court of law. The fact that the distant listener is not applying this filtering action to the sound of gunshots is irrelevant.

The projectile is pushed down the barrel of the firearm by the hot high-pressure gases, and then the base of the projectile leaves the muzzle end of the firearm. At this point, the hot high-pressure gases are free to expand radially outward, pushing the air outward as they move. It is necessary to carefully consider what is actually happening at this point, because this is the origin of muzzle blast, the sound of a shot.

At the moment before the base of the projectile comes out of the muzzle, the molecules that comprise the air around the muzzle are more or less stationary. That is so because the only energy sources available to move them are the energy of wind, which is moving all the molecules more or less in the same direction, and thermal energy, which is moving the molecules in random directions. Thermal energy causes the molecules to bump into one another, but the random nature of this movement results in their not leaving the vicinity. They behave like a crowd at a party, moving around within the room, but not actually going anywhere. They also bump against the eardrum of a listener, but the impact energy is far too low to be detected and sent to the brain.

The molecules of the hot high-pressure gases inside the barrel are at a high thermal energy level as a result of the heat and pressure. In effect, they are like overheated people in a hot, crowded room with the doors locked – they want to leave, but cannot because there is no exit available. When they find an exit, they leave energetically, bumping into anyone who gets in their way.

As the base of the projectile clears the muzzle, the hot gases are suddenly presented with an available exit from their prison. They use it to move outward, away from the barrel and the projectile. This outward movement of the hot high-pressure gas molecules pushes the local air molecules outward. In detail, this is caused by the impact of a high-energy gas molecule on an air molecule. There is a delivery of energy to the air molecule – energy given to the air molecule and lost by the gas molecule. Note this transfer of energy. It is important. At this point, the air molecule is moving outward, and the hot gas molecule has lost its energy and is not.

The air molecule soon hits another air molecule, and delivers its energy to that molecule, which begins to move outward, while the molecule that hit it becomes just another air molecule, moving randomly under the influence of the day’s thermal energy level. It is no longer going anywhere. The new energetic molecule now moves outward only long enough and far enough to hit yet another air molecule and transfer its recently-acquired energy to it.

With this clear picture of what is happening on a molecule-by-molecule basis, let us go back to the moment the base of the projectile came out of the muzzle. The hot gases expanded radially outward, pushing the air molecules radially outward. The moving air molecules then delivered their new energy to other molecules, which moved those molecules outward, and that sequence repeated many times. The particular molecules which are moving outward at any given moment are the outer surface of an energy wave. If a part of that energy wave hits

178


the eardrum of a distant listener, it delivers energy to the eardrum, pushing it inward. The brain of the distant listener then interprets the inward movement of the eardrum as a sound.

It is important to realize that it is a wave of energy that is moving. It is not a flow of moving air molecules travelling together as they do in a wind. The individual molecules only move outward for a very short distance, deliver their energy, and then essentially stop. The energy continues to move outward. It is also very important to realize that the total amount of energy available to create and maintain the energy wave is only the energy produced by the powder burned to make the shot, minus the energy delivered to the projectile as velocity and to the firearm as recoil movement. A small part of this energy eventually arrives at the location of the distant listener, where it pushes the eardrum of the listener inward, and that is what is detected as a sound. Consequently, the object of everything that is done must be to reduce the energy available to push that distant listener’s eardrum inwards.

From its starting point, the energy wave moves outward, expanding as it goes. It can be visualized as the outer wall of a rubber balloon that is being blown up and is getting larger. Very soon, it touches the ground and turns into an expanding dome; because it cannot expand in the ground, so it is that the outer wall of the energy wave runs across the surface of the ground. This picture of an expanding dome, or half-balloon, will help the reader to understand what follows.

It is probable that the reader has actually seen pictures of such a dome. The first stage of an exploding nuclear bomb, when seen or photographed, shows up as an expanding dome. That dome is also an energy wave, moving outward. It is an energy wave with a hugely greater amount of energy than a mere gunshot can provide, so much energy that the effects can be seen by the naked eye. The energy wave moving outward from a gunshot, an explosion, and a nuclear bomb are all closely related. Each is an energy dome moving outward. The energy levels are different, but the principles are the same.

As the energy dome created by the shot moves outward, it has to expand. This offers opportunities to reduce the energy intensity level at a point distant from the origin of the sound – precisely at the eardrum of the distant listener, which is the only place that matters.

First, the energy wave is always weakening. All of the available energy first appears at the muzzle of the firearm, as concentrated energy. In the beginning, it takes the form of a very small ring around the gap between the base of the projectile and the muzzle of the firearm. As the energy ring moves outward, it moves, always outward, but forward and back as well as out to the sides. In this way the initial ring becomes (very briefly) a sphere, and then a dome. As the outer wall of the dome moves outward, the initial total amount of energy available has to provide all of the energy that can ever be available to the growing dome. That means that the intensity of the energy at any given point in the dome weakens with the outward movement of the dome. This weakening due to expansion is the first component of sound reduction, and it is entirely automatic. Placing the muzzle of the firearm at a greater distance from the distant listener will reduce the quantity of energy delivered to the eardrum of the listener, reducing the level of sound heard by the listener. This can be done by moving the range, or by moving the firing point within the boundaries of the range. This is rarely a practicable solution.

Second, the energy wave can be bounced. That is, if the energy wave hits a rigid but elastic surface (say, a sheet of steel) it will push the outer surface molecules of the surface inwards. They will rebound to push the nearest air molecules and cause them to move at an angle determined by the direction of movement of the incoming air molecule (or the incoming energy wave, which is the same thing) and the angle at which it hit the surface. The rule on how this bouncing works is the same for a tennis ball or an air molecule that has hit the wall. Throw a tennis ball at a vertical wall, and it will bounce back toward the thrower. Direct the ball at

179


a wall angled at 45 degrees, and it will bounce upward. One can bounce the energy wave by placing angled berms or angled plates at each side of the shooting range. If the incoming energy wave is moving parallel to the ground and it hits a wall angled at about 45 degrees, the energy wave will be bounced into the sky – where there are no listeners. A vertical wall can bounce it back toward the firearm. One can bounce the energy wave earlier by placing small rigid angled walls at each firing point, so that the muzzle of the firearm has a wall to each side and to some short distance to the front and rear of the muzzle. This pattern will also bounce the energy wave upward.

It should be noted that the part of the energy dome which passes above the top of the berm or wall will not be bounced upward, but it is already travelling at a slight upward angle. As it moves outward, it will gradually edge downward until it is racing along the ground again, but it will be weaker, and the distant listener will hear a sound of lower intensity level.

Third, the energy in the energy wave can be absorbed. As the energy wave moves outward at ground level, the moving face of the energy wave, moving air molecules, hits a blade of grass. The grass is moved by the impact of those moving molecules, and bends outward for a moment. The energy used to move the blade of grass is lost to the outwardly-moving energy wave, and so it is no longer available to move the eardrum of the distant listener. It is important to note that any energy which gets used up in the doing of work, such as moving that blade of grass, or moving a leaf in a tree, is no longer available as a contribution to the intensity of the energy wave. Reducing the available energy reduces sound intensity beyond the point where the energy was absorbed. The amount of energy that can be absorbed by slight movements of the leaves on one large tree is quite substantial.

Energy can be used to do work, but if so, it is absorbed and reappears as heat. The distant listener’s ear cannot detect low levels of heat. If the energy does work before it reaches the distant listener’s eardrum, it is absorbed in causing the movement of the thing it moved and is no longer available to contribute its small part to the work of pushing the listener’s eardrum inwards. That method suggests that light, sound-absorbing curtains hung around a handgun or shotgun shooting range should work well, moving slightly as each gunshot energy wave hits them and absorbing energy by moving.

The reader has probably seen a set of images taken from the effects of a nuclear explosion, a widely-distributed film of trees being bent severely outward as the energy wave hits them. It illustrates the above principle quite well.

An alternative method of absorbing energy is the sound moderator. This device is a tube threaded onto the muzzle of the firearm. It captures the hot high-pressure gases as they leave the muzzle, reduces their pressure, and absorbs their thermal energy. This is done in one of two major ways.

The Maxim silencer redirects the radially outward movement of the hot high-pressure gases, and starts them spinning around and around, confined within the outer walls of the silencer. They are pinned into that position by centrifugal force as they spin around the inner wall of the metal tube. They spin around (losing energy as they travel) until they have lost nearly all their energy, and then leak out through the hole through which the projectile left. When they come out, they have very little energy left to deliver to local air molecules. This type of silencer does not lose efficiency as it heats.

The second form of silencer uses water or a rolled, fine copper screen to absorb thermal energy from the hot high-pressure gases into the highly thermally-conductive copper screen before allowing them to escape into the air. This type of silencer does lose efficiency as it heats.

Sound moderators have been outlawed in most countries, not because they can do what most

180


people think they can do, and not because gangsters use them, but because of the way they were portrayed in the cinema in the 1930s. Movie silencers reduce the sound generated by the expanding hot high-pressure gases to zero, and reduce the sound of projectile impact (again to zero). They silence the sound of a shot fired by a revolver, but real shots from real revolvers feature a heavy contribution to the noise level through the escape of hot high-pressure gas from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel, long before the projectile comes out of the muzzle. Movie silencers can do things like that because there are no real hot high-pressure gases or projectile impacts involved. Real silencers cannot reduce the energy levels that far, and they have no effect on the sound of bullet impact, which is usually quite loud, especially when an energetic projectile strikes a rigid or semi-rigid surface. The sound moderator has never been popular with gangsters, as silencers severely reduce the concealability loved by criminals, make handling awkward, and do not reduce the sound level enough to make them worthwhile.

Where barred by law, silencers cannot be used. However, there is a simple device that has a similar effect. By constructing a U-frame on the front end of a shooting bench to hold a line of old car tyres, high-powered rifle shooters can reduce their sound intensity levels very significantly. The muzzle of the rifle is placed inside the line of tires, and as the energy wave moves outward, it hits rubber, much of it that of the inner wall of the tyre, and moves the rubber outward. The energy is captured by the rubber, which vibrates a bit and then stops moving. Much of the energy wave is absorbed near the muzzle and is therefore no longer available to push the distant listener’s eardrum inward.

Those are the three primary principles that we can use to reduce shooting sound intensity. The reader is invited to invent his or her own variations on methods of using them to reduce range sound intensity problems.

In more modern technology, it is possible to counter an expanding energy wave by intercepting it with another expanding energy wave. In simple language, a sample of the sound intensity coming from the muzzle is collected by a microphone, converted into an electronic signal, sent to an electronic amplifier, sent to a loudspeaker, and blasted into the air. If certain scientific principles have been applied to the timing and frequencies, the new energy wave bumps into the expanding energy wave and interferes with it, weakening it. This technology is improving rapidly, but has not yet, apparently, been applied to the problem of shooting range sound intensity.

Session 4

The Way ForwardClosing Session

THE WAY FORWARDCLOSING SESSION

Mr. Joachim Streitberger, Germany Director of BVS (Federal Association of Shooting Ranges, Germany)

185

Session 4. The Way Forward - Closing Session

Workshop Summary and RecommendationsMr. Joachim Streitberger, GermanyDirector of BVS (Federal Association of Shooting Ranges, Germany)

As chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee of the World Forum, it is my task now to provide a summary of these proceedings. We have been listening to the finest and most respected minds in the field of shooting ranges discuss problems including lead reclamation, sound attenuation and construction of safe backstops.

We have learnt about issues that until today for many of us have often been only in the hands of specialists. The first point to make is we must differentiate between the perception of risk, actual risk, and our ability to manage risk.

With that said, yes, it is clear that technologies in the construction of shooting ranges are under continuous evolution. Regardless of questions about responsible care of ranges, the worldwide trends show that Olympic and competitive sport shooting numbers remain very substantial in the world at about fifty million. Shooting is an important and continuing activity.

Not only that, but shooting ranges have important community, cultural, economic and historic value. The full spectrum of community practices and expectations needs to be taken into account. Partnerships and co-operation are utterly central.

One of the greatest needs is for communication. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope of the work that is being done in the areas under discussion here today and it must not be wasted. We have seen that sport shooting groups have already been proactive in identifying and managing problems, in designing and managing shooting ranges.

It is clear that every shooting range is unique in terms of structure and use. However, despite the differences there are effective solutions to mitigate the issues that arise.

Our discussions have illustrated the need to manage a range as a complete system. Management techniques must be evaluated to ensure that their implementation does not have an adverse impact on the safe and successful operation of the facility.

Other pertinent facts were brought to the attention of the workshop, primarily that shooting ranges are site-specific and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Additionally, the importance of continuing maintenance was emphasized in many of the presentations.

At the end of the workshop the following conclusions were reached:

• The WFSA workshops on ranges proved again to be an invaluable tool for the exchange of the most recent science and information on these important topics;

• The issues discussed in the workshop are difficult and complex but progress is continuously being made;

• There is a continuing need to educate and inform governments and other regulatory authorities, as well as shooters and range operators, about shooting-range environmental issues and management practices.

Appendix 1

List of Participants

189

Appendix 1. Participants List

AUSTRALIA

Robert Green SSAA - Sporting Shooters Association of Australia PO Box 762 - Kent Town - 5071 South Australia Tel. +61 0754 644166 Fax. +61 0754 644726 Email: [email protected]

CANADAGary Mauser National Firearms Association 419 Fernhurst Place V3K5T9 Conquitlam BC Tel. +1 604 936 9141 Fax +1 604 936 9140 Email: [email protected]

GERMANY

Joerg Brokamp German Shooting Sport Federation Lahnstr 120 - 65195 Wiesbaden Tel. +49 611 46807 – 23/29 Fax +49 611 46807 - 60 Email: [email protected]

Friedrich Gepperth BDS Birkenring 119 - 16356 Ahrensfelde Tel. +49 175 2630 445 Fax +49 3099 401026 Email: [email protected]

Hans Herbert Keusgen BVS Germany Herchenrath 48 – D 53804 - Much Tel.+49 2245 618 515 Fax.+49 2245 618 516 Email: [email protected]

Jurgen Knappworst RUAG Ammotec Kronacherstr. 63 – D 90765 Fuerth Tel.+49 9103 715 910 Fax.+49 911 793 0767 Email: [email protected]

Dietrich Kühner Convenor of CEN 211/ISO TC 43 Working Group on Shooting Noise c/o deBakom Bergstrasse 36 Odenthal 36 - D 51519 Tel. +49 177 855 9422 Fax +49 2174 7464 20 Email: [email protected]

Anton Schoenle Geschossverwertung Schoenle GmbH Engenweilerweg, 4 - D 88348 Bad Saulgau Baden Wuerttemberg Tel. +49 7581 1706 Email: [email protected]

Joachim Streitberger FWR Germany Landvogtei 1 – 3 - D 79312 Emmendingen Tel. +49 7641 929 221 Fax +49 7641 929 220 Email: [email protected]

190


ITALY

Rosario Avveduto FITAV Viale Tiziano, 74 00196 Rome Tel. +39 06 3685 8469 Fax +39 06 3233 791 Email: [email protected]

Stefano Bufi Studio Associato Officina 8 Via Annio Floriano, 7 05100 Terni Tel. +39 0744 427 243 Fax +39 0744 431 270 Email: [email protected]

Giuseppe Forasassi UITS - Pisa University Via Diotisalvi, 2 - 56126 Pisa Tel. +39 050 836 615/611 Fax +39 050 836 665 Email: [email protected]

Vito Genco WFSA Executive Secretary Via Flaminia 441 I-00196 Roma Tel. +39 06 3220016 Fax. +39 06 3220018 Email: [email protected]

Enfried Obrist UITS Viale Tiziano, 70 I - 00196 Roma Tel. +39 06 3233550 Fax. +39 06 36858347 Email: [email protected]

Carlo Peroni WFSA President Viale dell'Astronomia, 30 - 00144 Roma Tel. +39 06 5903510 Fax. +39 06 54282691 Email: [email protected]

Giacomo Piazza FITAV Viale Tiziano, 74 00196 Rome Tel. +39 06 3685 8469 Fax +39 06 3233 791 Email: [email protected]

Pietro Pietrafesa WFSA Secretariat - ANPAM Viale dell'Astronomia, 30 00144 Roma Tel. +39 06 5903510 Fax. +39 06 54282691 Email: [email protected]

Stefano Rosi FITAV Viale Tiziano, 74 00196 Rome Tel. +39 06 3685 8469 Fax +39 06 3233 791 Email: [email protected]

Luciano Rossi FITAV Viale Tiziano, 74 00196 Rome Tel. +39 06 3685 8153 Fax +39 06 3233 791 Email: [email protected]

191


Mauro Silvis WFSA Secretariat - ANPAM Viale dell'Astronomia, 30 00144 Roma Tel. +39 06 5903510 Fax. +39 06 54282691 Email: [email protected]

Gabriele Valentini Studio Associato Officina 8 Via Annio Floriano, 7 05100 Terni +39 0744 427 243 Fax +39 0744 431 270 Email: [email protected]

SWEDEN

Jan Kjellberg The Swedish Pistol Shooting Association Box 5435 S - 114 84 Stockholm Tel. +46 278 155 64 Fax +46 278 161 10 Email: [email protected]

Torb Lindskog AFEMS Jagargatan S – 67040 Amotfors Tel. +46 571 31500 Fax +46 571 31540 Email: [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOM

John Batley The Gun Trade Association Ltd P.O. Box 43 Tewkesbury Gloucs WR10 3DM Tel. +44 1684 291 868 Fax +44 1684 291 864 Email: [email protected]

Frank Compton Defence Training Estate TAS (RE) Blenheim Hall Imber Road BA12 ODJ Warminster Wiltshire Tel. +44 1985 22 2434 Fax +44 1985 22 2259 Email: [email protected]

John Harradine British Association for Shooting and Conservation Marford Mill, Rossett, Wrexham LL120HL Tel. +44 1244 573016 Fax +44 1244 573013 Email: [email protected]

David Penn BSSC P.O. Box 53608 SE24 9YN London Tel +44 2070 958 181 Fax +44 2070 958 181 Email: [email protected]

USA

James Arnold US Dep. of Defence – The Arnold Consulting Group US Army Environmental Command IMAE – AT E – 4430 5179 Hoadley Road Tel. +1 410 436 6848 Email: [email protected]

192


Thomas Mason WFSA Executive Secretary 7618 Oak Leaf Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95409 Tel. +1 707 539 3371 Fax. +1 707 538 2737 Email: [email protected]

Richard Patterson SAAMI 11 Mile Hill Rd Newtown CT 06470 Tel. +1 203 426 4358 Fax. +1 203 426 1087 Email: [email protected]

Richard Peddicord Dick Peddicord & Company, Inc. 1115 Coopers Landing Road Heathsville, 22473 Virginia Tel. +1 804 580 3320 Fax +1 804 580 3360 Email: [email protected]

Ted Rowe WFSA - MAG 42 Bittersweet Lane Weston MA 02493 Tel. +1 781 891 4555 Fax. +1 781 893 3063 Email: [email protected]

Appendix 2

Contributors’ Biographies

195

Appendix 2. Contributors’ biographies

James (Jim) Arnold - USAPresident, The Arnold Consulting Group

Jim Arnold has over 29 years’ experience with the US Department of Defense in the areas of unexploded ordnance, military munitions, range operations, chemical warfare materiel, innovative environmental technologies and best management practices, and the weapons acquisition process.He retired as the Division Chief of the Technology and Weapons Acquisition Division of the US Army Environmental Command in 2006. He is currently President of the Arnold Consulting Group.Jim Arnold graduated from the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, with a degree in Natural Sciences.

Jörg Brokamp - GermanyGeneral Secretary of the German Shooting Sport & Archery Federation(Deutscher Schützenbund e.V. – DSB)

Jörg Brokamp is General Secretary of the German Shooting Sport & Archery Federation. With 1.5m members in more than 16,000 clubs, this is the leading federation of shooting sports in Germany. He graduated from the Law School at Münster University, Germany, and did his Master’s in Sport Management at Lyon University in France, in cooperation with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Lausanne. He is a member of the Statutes and Eligibility Committee of the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF). Together with the executive board of the German Shooting Sport & Archery Federation he coordinates all matters relating to environment and health protection in shooting activities. In 2000, Jörg Brokamp was involved in the organization of the DSB-Congress entitled “Shooting Sport Ranges and the Environment” held in Ulm. Over the last two years he has been responsible for the environmentally-friendly restoration and extension of the shotgun range at the National Olympic Training Centre of the Federation in Wiesbaden.

Stefano Bufi - ItalyCivil Engineer, partner in the OFFICINA 8 association for town-planning design, architecture, engineering and environmental issues

Stefano Bufi holds a degree in Civil Engineering from Rome University La Sapienza (1974). He was a design engineer with a company specializing in environmental acoustics until 1976.Since then he has worked as a freelance professional with other engineers, architects and technicians with whom he has set up an association working in the sectors of town planning, architecture, engineering, installations and environmental and safety issues.He has attended training courses on environmental impact assessment studies, environmental acoustics, safety in the workplace and safety on construction sites.He participates in commissions for the Umbria Region, the Narnese–Amerino territory and the Municipalities of Terni and Sangemini as a technical-administrative expert and expert in environmental heritage.He is a member of the Italian Town-Planning Institute and the Italian Acoustics Association.

196


Frank S. Compton – UKMajor (Retd), Officer Commanding The Technical Advisory Section Royal Engineers (UK Range Design Authority)

Frank Compton is a military engineer involved in construction works and projects since 1973. During this time he has held the post of Senior Instructor at the Royal School of Military Engineering. His works and project experience include offshore works in Hong Kong, support to the USAF in UK, and construction of ammunition storage facilities for the Canadian Air Force in Alberta, Canada. He has provided support to airfields in Oman, range development work for Kenyan Forces near Mombassa, infrastructure work on the Falkland Islands, and has had responsibility for UK rail infrastructure in Europe based in Germany. Since 1995 he has held this current post, providing UK standards for range design. He is a member of the UK Defence Land Ranges Safety Committee and Secretary and technical adviser to the UK Land Ranges Working Party.infrastructure work on Falkland Islands, responsible for UK rail infrastructure in Europe based in Germany. Since 1995 he has held this current post providing UK standards for range design. Member of the UK Defence Land Ranges Safety Committee and Secretary and technical advisor to the UK Land Ranges Working Party.

Giuseppe Forasassi - ItalyDepartment of Mechanical, Nuclear and Production Engineering, University of Pisa

Professor Giuseppe Forasassi graduated with honours in Engineering from Pisa University; at present he is a full professor of Plant Components Design and Construction and also of Construction Techniques for Nuclear and Safety Engineering Degrees, a teacher to PhD level, and a teacher at the School of Specialization in Industrial Safety and Protection at Pisa University.His research activity, documented in more than 100 publications and reports in international conferences and magazines, has been related mainly to the study and safety structures analysis of energy and industrial plants in normal and accident conditions. The research has developed in programs financed by national and international organizations, industry and research institutions. Giuseppe Forasassi has been coordinator of several national and international research programs, and an affiliate and or governing board member of numerous scientific and professional associations (such as AIN, ATA, ENS, ESRA, UIT and DYMAT).He has been committee or session chairman of several international conferences, President of the Pisa Engineering Faculty Library Centre, past Director of the Pisa University Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, and is the current President of CIRTEN (the Inter-University Consortium for Nuclear Technology Research).

Vito Genco - ItalyExecutive Secretary, Europe for the WFSA; Executive Secretary of the European Association of Sporting Ammunition Manufacturers (AFEMS)

Dr. Vito Genco has served for more than 20 years as Vice President of the Italian Association of Sporting Guns and Ammunition Manufacturers (ANPAM). He has also taken a parallel position with AFEMS. With science qualifications in Geochemistry from the University of Rome, Vito Genco conducted his main career working for one of the major Italian chemical industries, where he was responsible for many business units, specifically in various types of civilian explosives. His responsibilities included positions as chief of production, marketing director, chief of division and managing director. His later business responsibilities were directed towards carrying out international strategic plans of development for his company, worldwide. This long experience was subsequently the foundation for his appointment in his positions with AFEMS, ANPAM and WFSA.

197


Friedrich Gepperth - GermanyPresident of the German Shooters Association (BDS) – Member of IPSC, the Federation of German Sportshooters

Friedrich H. Gepperth owns and manages a group of dental laboratories in Germany. He took a Master’s degree in economics from the University of Mannheim in 1983. He has been an active and successful big bore shooter in various disciplines. In 1988 he became Vice-President of the BDS, the second-largest shooting association in Germany. In 1996 he was elected President of the BDS and was re-elected in 2001 and 2006. He has been active in top positions with the IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) since 1993. Currently he holds the position of General Secretary of the IPSC. As such he is the deputy of the IPSC President. Friedrich Gepperth represented the BDS at the founding ceremony of the International Metallic Silhouette Shooting Union (IMSSU) in Paris in 1992 and is currently one of the IMSSU Vice Presidents. In 1998 he became a certified shooting range expert. In 2000, he bought a closed-down shooting range from the German Bundeswehr in the small town of Philippsburg. He planned and executed a total reconstruction and enlargement of the range and increased its capacity by more than 300%. Today, the Philippsburg range is one of the two largest shooting ranges in private hands in Germany. Multiple shooting events, some of them European and World Championships, are held there annually. The range offers unparalleled opportunities for various shooting disciplines. Friedrich Gepperth owns several other shooting ranges and is involved in the reconstruction and new building of outdoor and indoor shooting ranges in several parts of Germany.

Bob Green - AustraliaPresident of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA)

Bob Green is the President of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA). The SSAA has 120,000 members and operates shooting ranges for rifle, pistol and shotgun all over the continent.In his additional role as National Discipline Coordinator, his responsibilities include the management of national and international shooting competitions, safety regulations and range design and rules.Bob Green has been involved in the design, construction and management of shooting ranges in Australia for the past 30 years. He has also worked in the Queensland Weapons Licensing branch, which oversees clubs and ranges within the state of Queensland.Recently, he has been working with the Australian Environmental Protection Authority on the subject of airborne contaminants and with other government departments on issues of direct interest to hunters, target shooters, collectors and range managers and operators.He is currently a member of the Australian Government Sporting Shooters Advisory Council. In 2005 and 2006, he was an adviser on the Australian government delegation to the United Nations meetings on small arms.

John Harradine - UKDirector of Research, BASC, UK

Director of Research for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), and trained in wildlife management, Dr. John Harradine has provided the science and technical base for the UK’s national sporting shooting organization since 1978. Research is undertaken into all aspects of the sport, to support BASC’s efforts to represent shooting sports from local to international level. It involves monitoring shooting and quarry

198


populations to ensure shooting is sustainable; addressing issues relating to shooting to ensure it is conducted wisely; supporting the contribution shooting makes to biodiversity and management of the resource; and resolving problems over conservation needs or with other users of the countryside. He continues to be a member of various government and international working groups, attendee of conferences and seminars, and author of papers, proceedings and reports on a wide variety of shooting-related topics. He is a specialist in the issues relating to the use of lead shot and its alternatives, and was recently contracted by AFEMS to prepare its handbook for shooting range managers.

Jan Kjellberg - SwedenVice President of the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association, Chairman of the Executive Board and Head of the Technical Committee

A mechanical engineer by training, and a licensed gunsmith, Jan Kjellberg started his career in the construction department at Carl Gustaf, the Swedish arms manufacturer. He then worked for 25 years as an independent in the sawmill industry, where he gained considerable experience of both national and international construction works and projects. During and after his time in the sawmill industry, he designed several shooting ranges (both indoor and outdoor) as well as automatic range equipment.He has been a member of the board of the Swedish Pistol Shooting Association since 1982, where he has combined his technical experience with his interest in pistol shooting as the head of its technical committee. In that capacity, he has been involved in formulating the technical regulatory framework for the Association, including safety requirement calculations for off-range shooting.

Dietrich H. Kuehner - GermanyNoise Auditor

Dr Dietrich H. Kuehner has been an auditor in Germany for noise and air quality, specifically for odours, and authorized to give the certificate of approval for new plants. He is now semi-retired. He gained his PhD in physics in 1970 in Stuttgart, Germany, moved to USA and did research at the Indiana University, Bloomington, worked in the environmental field for years for the Bayer Company in Germany and started his own business in 1981. He has participated in numerous standardization projects for the German Federation of Engineers (VDI), the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), the International Standard Organization (ISO) and the European Standards Organizations (CEN). He currently chairs the WG51 of ISO TC 43 Acoustics, involving the ISO CEN Standards on Shooting Noise.

Helmut Kinsky – GermanyExecutive Director, DEVA

An engineer, Helmut Kinsky is Executive Director of the German Institute for Experimentation and Testing of Hunting and Sporting Arms (DEVA). Since 1969 he has been Manager of the DEVA in Altenbeken-Buke, Ostwestfalen.He is a member of the executive council of the committee of experts on Dangerous Explosive Substances and the Consultative Committee for Problems Concerning Hunters. Since 1972 he has had expert status in hunting problems all over Germany. His memberships have included the Target Shooting Experts Committee at the German Shooting Federation, the DIN Standards Committee at Wasserwesen, and also the Working Centre for Shooting Ranges in Berlin. He is Chairman of the Committee for Studying Craftsmanship for the Small Arms

199


Manufacturing Sector, for the Chamber of Craftsmen in Muenster. He is also a member of the Committee of Experts of the German Association for the Protection of Hunting, and the author of several features and books on shooting theory and practice.

Torbjorn Lindskog - SwedenAFEMS President, Norma Precision AB President

Torbjorn Lindskog, who received an MBA in Economics from the University of Gothenburg, is the President of Norma Precision AB, Amotfors, Sweden. Norma Precision AB is a member of the Swiss RUAG Group of Companies.He is also the President of AFEMS, the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition, and Honorary Consul of Germany. He has been in the civilian ammunition business for more than a decade and before that was in marketing, working with companies like Sandvik and Electrolux.

Thomas L. Mason, Esq. - USAAmerican Executive Secretary of the WFSA

Educated at J.D. Lewis and Clark Law School, M.S. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA, Thomas Mason is the American Executive Secretary of the WFSA. He is an attorney by profession and has concentrated his practice on international government relations for nine years.He taught Administration of Justice for ten years and was a member of the Oregon Legislature for 16 years. He has also been a practising criminal lawyer, both prosecuting and defending cases.

Richard K. Peddicord - USAPhD in Marine Science from the University of Virginia: Assessment and management of environmental risk, EPA Environmental Quality 2003

Dr. Richard K. (Dick) Peddicord has broad experience in assessment and management of environmental risks for a variety of clients, with particular emphasis on assessment of potential environmental impacts, development of practical environmental management approaches, siting and designing to minimize potential impacts, regulatory review and negotiation, expert testimony, and regulatory and public interaction at recreational, law enforcement and military shooting ranges. Dick Peddicord holds a PhD in Marine Science from the University of Virginia. He developed a guidance manual on environmental aspects of construction and management of outdoor shooting ranges that constitutes National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) guidance on best management practices. In 2003 he received the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Quality Award, the Agency’s highest award to non-employees. Dick Peddicord has provided scientific support to the shooting sports since 1986. During that time he has given technical support to counsel representing dozens of ranges in legal and regulatory cases involving environmental allegations. He has developed Environmental Stewardship Plans for many shooting ranges, and assisted in resolving various environmental issues related to range siting, design and operation. He is recognized as an authority on environmental issues related to outdoor shooting ranges. He is the author of over 60 national and international scientific papers, reports and presentations dealing with assessment and management of contaminants in the environment, including ten specifically addressing shooting range issues.

200


Carlo Peroni - ItalyWFSA President

President of The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, Carlo Peroni is a graduate doctor in law who has specialized in marketing. He worked for over 30 years for the Italian firearms company Pietro Beretta in Gardone Val Trompia (Brescia), Italy, as manager of sales and marketing departments. He is now the President of ANPAM (Associazione Nazionale Produttori Armi e Munizioni) in Rome (Italy) and President of IEACS (Institut Europeen des Armes de Chasse et de Sport) in Bruxelles (Belgium).

Ulf Qvarfort - SwedenProfessor in Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology, Swedish Defence Research Agency

Ulf Qvarfort is Professor in Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. He is a Laboratory Research Officer at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, division of NBC Defence. His research projects have included the subject of pollution of soil and groundwater from the military bases and military industrial areas. Since 1999, most of his projects have been undertaken for the Swedish Armed Forces, revolving around specific pollution that concerns the Army.He has published about 200 scientific papers in reports and internationally.

Anton Schoenle - GermanyDevelopment Engineer Anton Schönle completed his studies at the University of Stuttgart with a graduate diploma in mechanical engineering. In 1989 he started his career as a development engineer in an engineering company in Reutlingen, in the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg. Since 2003 he has been responsible on an honorary basis for a shooting stand which is utilized by 1,200 hunters and sports shooters. Because of strict official requirements combined with insufficient means of his shooting club, Anton Schönle began to get involved in the disposal of lead shot. He set out to provide a cost-efficient and ecologically sensitive solution. The systems which are currently available on the market are not suited for unsifted topsoil. He independently developed a wet-mechanical procedure for recycling lead shot. His development particularly involves a sensitive treatment of lead shot in order to largely avoid the abrasion of oxide layers. In 2005 he succeeded in obtaining 36 tons of lead shot from the earth wall of the trap and skeet shooting stand by means of a prototype installation.

Joachim Streitberger - GermanyDirector of BVS (Federal Association of Shooting Ranges, Germany)

Joachim Streitberger is the Director of BVS, an association of shooting ranges in Germany. He is a lawyer by profession, and he specializes in the field of firearms legislation (he is the spokesperson for the German Forum Waffenrecht) and the environmental problems of shooting ranges.His association, BVS, was founded in 1994, in the face of the increasing legislation on soil protection in Germany, and he has been working since this time on finding sustainable solutions especially for clay target shooting ranges. He is a member of the DIN Committee on the Environmentally Friendly Operation of Shooting Ranges, Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee of the WFSA and member of the Technical Committee of AFEMS.

201


Kimberly Watts - USAEnvironmental Science and Engineering for US Department of Defence

Kimberly Watts received a Bachelor of Science in Accounting in 1983, a further degree qualification in Chemistry and Biology in 1994, and gained Acquisition Corps Certification for the Department of Defence in 2006.She works in Environmental Science and Engineering for the Department of Defense and has professional experience from the US Army Environmental Command.She has been Team Chief and Program Manager for the Sustainable Range Technology and UXO programs. Her focus has been on range-sustaining technologies and UXO detection and discrimination technologies, including fate and transport of military-unique constituents. Her programs have incorporated small arms range efforts such as tungsten assessment including fate and transport; compliant range design for all types of military ranges; Department of Defense National Test Sites for UXO detection and discrimination and removal; munitions air emissions; and Active range Wide Area Assessment Analysis.

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangkhue
View:	234 times
Download:	6 times

Workshop on Shooting Ranges: Lead Reclamation Sound ... · PDF fileWorkshop on Shooting...

Documents