The information seems to be coming out in small tidbits in this thread, but building an indoor range involves much more than a building and some targets. If he knows the costs going in, he'll be better prepared as they mount up. If it's already an indoor range, then he needs to have it inspected by a reputable company that deals with indoor ranges and compliance issues with the regulatory agencies. Here is the information he needs, whether it's a new range, or an existing range:
https://www.nssf.org/understanding-...utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=ranges&utm_term=
While on the surface this seems like good advice, it does not do justice to the very real dangers essentially all indoor shooting ranges the general shooting public will have access to pose. I've been shooting at indoor ranges for 1-2 hours a week for the last 6 months. I also reload, but use manufactured FMJs and plated bullets, and observe careful protective and hygienic measures associated. I have been suffering from fatigue and an uncharacteristic degree of ineffectiveness in problem-solving situations amongst other symptoms lately, and after doing some google time on the topic of lead exposure at indoor ranges decided I needed to have my blood lead level (BLL) checked.
The results came back last week - 12 µg/dL. My doctor characterized this as 'slightly elevated', and proscribed stopping shooting indoors and retesting in a month. And understand, he only tested me because I researched the issue and insisted. His reaction was 'I've never had a patient say they've been shooting indoors and are concerned about lead'. Mine? I don't care; test it. Had I just told him my symptoms and waited for him to decide to test for lead, I would have died first. And this is a lot better than average doctor - he is retiring from his practice in a few months to take a teaching position at a large state university hospital.
What is an average blood lead level? Good question. It's been dropping steadily since the early 70's when the dangers of lead toxicity became known and regulatory measures reduced the average American's exposure. When I was born in 1970, 60 µg/dL was the point at which your doctor said your level was elevated. Now that level is 5 µg/dL. Considering the degree of the symptoms I've been suffering at 12, I suspect the BLL action level will continue to decline from the present 5.
So what makes it bad advice? It is because conforming to the regulatory measures doesn't do squat. OSHA's action level for BLL is 50-60 µg/dL, depending on the trade, a leftover of that 1970 view of average BLL. Also understand, OSHA (nor any other regulatory agency) does not inspect but a statistically insignificant number of shooting ranges in any time period, and those that are inspected are done so after a trail of consumer complaints and subsequent BLL test results from the employees above 50 µg/dL. At that point they find a laundry list of regulatory issues, at which point you find out that their enforcement measures are generally ineffective, and the intense exposure continues.
Shooting with lead-based primers indoors is dangerous. Your range may be one of the exceedingly rare ones that meets the applicable regulatory measures, but even so you can develop seriously elevated BLL. The main dangers are this - lead in the air and lead on surfaces. Even with great ventilation if all exposed surfaces in the range are not regularly cleansed the degree of lead on surfaces is great enough to easily become airborne, contaminating even a healthy and clean stream of ventilating air. Essentially all ranges fail on either ventilation or surface contamination (generally both). Sweep up your brass? You are going to put a bunch of surface lead into the air and breath it. You can wash it off your hands easily enough, but the airborne exposure is the killer.
I don't want to stop shooting indoors, as its handy you can do it year round. But it is dangerous, and shooters need to recognize the risks rather than finding a line of reasoning that says 'it's OK under these circumstances'. In reality it's only viable long-term if the lead contamination is reduced to near-elimination, and doing so is highly reliant on the exclusive use of lead-free priming compounds in addition to better ventilation and a higher degree of maintenance than all but a handful of commercial indoor ranges benefit from.
I recommend each and every shooter who utilizes indoor ranges more than a couple of times a year get their blood lead level tested. Everyone has to decide for themselves what an actionable BLL is, and balance that against other factors. But don't stop at trusting the regulatory agencies or their design recommendations and standards, as they are antiquated, inadequate and will not protect your health, even if they were routinely observed.
Here is a good resource for understanding blood lead levels, what 'average' is and the regulatory standards applied to lead exposure:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=8
You can google plenty of information on the very real risks posed by the combination of lead-based priming compounds and indoor shooting ranges, as well as the depressing tales of woe from those who continued to wrack up lead in their blood until their levels were something concerning OSHA. As many of us have been shooting since childhood we are well versed with firearms safety protocols, but the time-worn 'just wash up afterwards' view of lead exposure is inadequate.
