U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Contents

Highlights...............................................i

Abbreviations ..................................... iii

Introduction......................................... 1

Methods ............................................... 2

Results and Discussion........................ 5

Conclusions........................................ 14

Recommendations............................. 14

Appendix A ........................................ 17

Appendix B..........................................21

Appendix C..........................................30

References.......................................... 31

Acknowledgements........................... 35

The employer is required to post a copy of this report for 30 days at or near the 

workplace(s) of affected employees. The employer must take steps to ensure 

that the posted report is not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.

The cover photo is a close-up image of sorbent tubes, which are used by the HHE 

Program to measure airborne exposures. This photo is an artistic representation that may 

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation. Photo by NIOSH.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page i

We evaluated nine park 

employees who were working 

in extreme heat. Some 

employees had signs of heat 

strain although none of the nine 

employees had dehydration, 

clinically significant muscle 

breakdown, or heat-related 

illnesses. We recommend 

scheduling strenuous outdoor 

work during cooler months, at 

night, or early in the morning. 

We also recommend forming a 

work group of employees, the 

safety manager, and a physician 

medical advisor to develop 

standard operating procedures 

for self-monitoring when 

working in the heat, additional 

training, and changes to the 

heat stress policy.

Highlights of this Evaluation

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the safety manager at a 

national park in California. The safety manager asked NIOSH to evaluate park employees 

working in extreme heat, review the park’s current and proposed heat stress management 

policies, and recommend ways to prevent heat-related illnesses. 

What We Did

● We asked employees to fill out a questionnaire about their work history, medical 

history, and health symptoms.

● We measured core body temperature and heart rate in nine employees on 4 days in July 2013.

● We analyzed employees’ blood each day 

for markers of muscle breakdown and 

dehydration during 4 workdays and the 

following 3 rest days.

● We asked about symptoms of heat-related 

illness and muscle breakdown each workday.

● We estimated how hard the employees 

were working. 

● We measured temperature and humidity each 

day while employees worked outdoors.

● We reviewed the park’s current and proposed 

heat stress policies.

● We looked at park records of work-related 

injuries and illness.

What We Found

● One employee had a core body temperature 

over our defined heat strain criteria.

● No employees were dehydrated or had 

significant muscle breakdown at work.

● Several employees had sustained maximum 

heart rates consistent with heat strain.

● Environmental conditions were often above limits for heat stress at work.

● The heat stress policy did not follow NIOSH’s heat stress recommendations for work 

and rest times.

● Employees were not consistent in following the park’s heat stress policy. For example, 

employees did not always observe the “buddy system” rule.

● Employees did not always carry radios nor use them properly.
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

What the Employer Can Do

● Avoid moderate to very heavy outdoor work tasks during summer months. If it is 

necessary to perform these tasks during summer months, work at night. 

● Reduce the amount of time employees work in extremely hot weather. 

● Revise the park’s heat stress policy to include work/rest periods based on NIOSH wet 

bulb globe temperature and workload.

● Require employee self-monitoring as part of the heat stress policy. 

● Develop a workgroup of employees, a physician medical advisor, and the safety manager 

to make decisions on self-monitoring options and standard operating procedures.

● Stop work when the NIOSH wet bulb globe temperature heat stress ceiling limit is 

exceeded or provide employees with adequate protective clothing and equipment.

What Employees Can Do

● Follow the heat stress policy at all times.

● Carry a radio at all times.

● Avoid working alone. Use the buddy system. 

● Learn the signs and symptoms of excessive heat strain.

● Self-monitor and document signs and symptoms of heat strain.

● Tell your supervisor immediately if you have symptoms of heat-related illness or if you 

note these symptoms in a coworker.

● Drink plenty of fluids, and take rest breaks as needed.

● Volunteer to be on the work group to develop self-monitoring guidance for working in 

the heat.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page iii

Abbreviations 

AC Air-conditioning

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

bpm Beats per minute

BUN Blood urea nitrogen

CBT Core body temperature

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CK Creatine kinase

F Fahrenheit

HR Heart rate

HRI Heat-related illness

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

REL Recommended exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average

WBGT Wet bulb globe temperature
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 1

Introduction 

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the safety manager at a park in 

California about the potential for heat-related illness (HRI) in employees who work outdoors in 

extreme heat. We conducted our on-site evaluation in July 2013. This request followed a previous 

health hazard evaluation request in November 2012, in which general recommendations were 

made to improve the heat stress policy, but no on-site evaluation was done. 

The park covers 3.4 million acres with elevations ranging from 282 feet below sea level to 11,049 

feet above sea level. The lower areas of the park are approximately 20° Fahrenheit (°F) warmer 

than higher elevations. July is the hottest month in the park, when average daily temperatures are 

88°F–116°F. The park had a stargazing program that discouraged night-time activities (including 

maintenance work) requiring the use of artificial lighting. Park maintenance activities were 

scheduled as funding became available without regard to the season.

The park employed approximately 100 people. Our evaluation focused on the following:

● At a higher elevation in the park, five maintenance employees removed about 10,000 

square feet of asphalt from a parking lot. After removing the asphalt, employees 

prepared the surface for repaving using a grader, Bobcat®, backhoe, shovels, and rakes.

● At a lower elevation in the park, one employee installed exterior bricks on a campground 

kiosk, and two other employees repaired housing and maintained the grounds.

● At multiple locations within the park, an archaeologist surveyed sites. 

Heat-Related Illness and Rhabdomyolysis

Heat stress is the sum of the heat generated in the body (metabolic heat) plus the heat 

gained from the environment (environmental heat) minus the heat lost from the body to the 

environment [NIOSH 2013]. Many bodily responses to heat stress are desirable and beneficial; 

however, at some stage of heat stress, the body’s compensatory measures cannot maintain 

internal body temperature at the level required for normal functioning. As a result, the risk of 

HRI and accidents occurring as a result of HRI-related impaired mental status increase.

The body’s response to heat stress is called heat strain. Heat strain is dependent upon 

a number of factors and cannot be predicted on the basis of environmental heat stress 

measurements alone. As a result of working in a hot environment, HRI may develop. HRI 

includes disorders such as: 

● Heat stroke – An acute medical emergency arising during exposure to heat resulting 

in an excessive rise in body temperature and failure of the temperature regulating 

mechanism. It is characterized by a change in mental status, which can range from 

confusion or bizarre behavior to seizures and loss of consciousness. It is often preceded 

by signs and symptoms of heat exhaustion as described below. Body temperature may 

be in excess of 106°F, but there is no specific temperature used to make the diagnosis. 

Heat stroke can be fatal if not immediately treated.

● Heat exhaustion – A heat-related illness characterized by muscular weakness, distress, 

nausea, vomiting, dizziness, pale clammy skin, and fainting; usually associated with 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

lack of heat acclimatization and physical fitness, poor health status, and inadequate 

water intake.

● Heat rash – Skin irritation that occurs most often in hot environments and causes skin 

to become red and itchy. The rash usually appears in areas where clothing is restrictive.

● Heat cramps – Muscle pains or spasms that can happen during prolonged work or 

exercise in high temperatures.

Rhabdomyolysis, or muscle tissue breakdown, is the result of any process that causes injury 

to or death of muscle tissue. When muscle cells die, their contents of electrolytes and proteins 

are released into the bloodstream, which can result in potentially life-threatening conditions 

affecting the heart and kidneys [Khan 2009]. There is a well-known association between 

heat stroke and rhabdomyolysis [Department of the Army and Air Force 2003; Bontempo 

and Kaji 2010; O’Connor and Duester 2011; ACGIH 2014]. Rhabdomyolysis and acute 

kidney failure often occur together in people with exertional heat stroke [Bontempo and Kaji 

2010]. Rhabdomyolysis is serious; up to 8% of documented rhabdomyolysis cases are fatal 

[Cervellin et al. 2010]. Muscle tissue can be damaged by overheating, overexertion, crush 

injury, some medications or supplements, or certain medical conditions. More information 

about heat stress, heat strain, and rhabdomyolysis is in Appendix A. 

Methods

The objectives of this HHE were to: 

1. Determine if employees had excessive heat strain, signs and symptoms of HRI, or 

rhabdomyolysis.

2. Identify personal and work-related risk factors for excessive heat strain, HRI, and 

rhabdomyolysis. 

3. Determine if employees had evidence of dehydration after their work shifts.

4. Review the park’s current and proposed heat stress policies.

5. Observe how the park’s current heat stress policy is being implemented. 

The 15 park employees scheduled to work outdoors during the week of the evaluation 

were invited to participate. We obtained informed consent from nine of the 15 employees, 

and ensured they had no medical reasons that would exclude them from participating 

such as digestive problems, having a pacemaker, or pregnancy. Our methods included (1) 

administering a questionnaire to employees, (2) obtaining twice daily symptom surveys from 

employees during workdays, (3) testing employees’ blood before and after each work shift 

and once a day on rest days for markers of rhabdomyolysis and dehydration, (4) measuring 

employees’ body weight before and after each work shift, (5) measuring employees core 

body temperature and heart rate during workdays, (6) assessing environmental conditions 

on workdays, (7) observing work practices, and (8) reviewing the park’s injury and illness 

records and written heat stress policies (current and proposed).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 3

Questionnaire

Employees completed a questionnaire on work and medical history, including risk factors for 

and previous diagnoses of HRI or rhabdomyolysis. We asked about recent use (past 2 weeks) 

of medications, supplements, and beverages that could be associated with rhabdomyolysis 

and HRI. We also asked about possible HRI signs and symptoms experienced in the week 

prior to our evaluation. 

Daily Symptom Surveys

We asked employees about HRI symptoms (lightheadedness/dizziness, feeling faint, 

headache, nausea, sudden or severe fatigue, weakness, and heat rash) at lunchtime and at the 

end of each workday. At the end of each workday we also asked employees about symptoms 

associated with rhabdomyolysis (unusual soreness in the arms, legs, or back, or darker than 

normal urine) and to estimate their total fluid intake over that shift.

Blood Analysis for Markers of Rhabdomyolysis and 

Dehydration

We collected blood samples preshift and post-shift during the workweek and once a day on 

rest days. Approximately three to six drops of whole blood were collected via fingerstick 

and analyzed using the Abaxis Piccolo® Metlyte 8 Reagent Disc in a Piccolo XpressTM 

Analyzer. To estimate the potential for rhabdomyolysis, we measured the amount of creatine 

kinase (CK), an enzyme that serves as a marker for muscle breakdown. We used a standard 

definition of rhabdomyolysis of a CK level five times the upper limit of the reference 

range of the assay used to analyze the samples [O’Connor and Duester 2011]. Using the 

Piccolo® Metlyte 8 Reagent Disc in the Piccolo XpressTM Analyzer, these values were > 

1,900 international units/liter for males and 950 international units/liter for females [Abaxis 

2011]. We stopped testing individual employees when results showed two successively 

declining CK levels on rest days. If CK values rose to the level of our case definition (in 

this evaluation, none did), those employees would have been instructed to seek immediate 

medical attention. Employees whose CK values did not demonstrate two successively 

declining levels before the end of our testing were instructed to follow-up with their 

healthcare provider within 1 week.

We measured blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratios and calculated serum osmolarity 

to determine the level of dehydration. We defined dehydration as either a BUN to creatinine 

ratio > 20:1 or a calculated serum osmolarity > 290 milliosmoles/liter [Singer and Brenner 

2008]. All blood samples were collected following the standard precautions for prevention 

of exposure to bloodborne pathogens as specified by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [CDC 1998; 29 

CFR 1910.1000]. All blood test results were available within 30 minutes of collection. Any 

employee with a clinically significant abnormal test result was contacted immediately. At the 

completion of the testing week, all participants received a letter containing their results of all 

of their blood tests.
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Heat Strain Assessment

We classified an employee as having excessive heat strain if he or she had one or more of the 

following:

● A core body temperature (CBT) > 101.3°F. This is in accordance with the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value 

(TLV) heat stress guidelines for acclimatized individuals [ACGIH 2014].

● A heart rate > 180 beats per minute (bpm) minus the age of the employee sustained for 

at least 3 minutes [ACGIH 2014].

● A body weight loss over a shift greater than 1.5% [ACGIH 2014].

● Symptoms of sudden and severe fatigue, nausea, headache, dizziness, feeling faint, or 

lightheadedness.

Core Body Temperature

Prior to participating in the evaluation, all employees were screened for medical conditions 

that would preclude them from safely ingesting a Philips Respironics CBT sensor. The single 

use CBT sensor is about the size of a multivitamin, is biologically inert, and exits the body 

with a bowel movement. It takes temperature measurements as it passes through the digestive 

system and transmits this data to a receiver called a datalogger worn outside the body. Using 

a CBT sensor is considered the most accurate way to measure internal body temperature 

[Sawka and Pandolf 2001; McKenzie and Osgood 2004; Byrne and Lim 2007].

Each CBT sensor transmitted data to the datalogger every 15 seconds. Employees swallowed 

a new CBT sensor before starting work each morning. Each employee then drank about 16 

ounces of water and ate 5–10 saltine crackers to help move the sensor from the stomach into 

the small intestine where the most accurate CBTs are measured. At the end of each workday, 

we downloaded and stored the CBT data. Employees were not asked to take the CBT sensor 

on rest days. All employees were considered acclimatized because they worked in this hot 

environment during the 2 weeks prior to our evaluation. 

Heart Rate

We used the Equivital LifeMonitor EQ02 physiological monitoring system to measure and 

store employee heart rate data every 15 seconds for each workday. This system consists of a 

chest strap containing a sensor that contacts the skin and determines the heart rate. All heart 

rate data were transmitted and stored on the same datalogger used to collect the CBT data. 

Employees were not asked to wear the heart rate sensor on rest days. 

Body Weight

We measured preshift and postshift body weight to assess fluid losses over a work shift. 

We also used participants’ body weight changes as one of the criteria to assess their risk for 

excessive heat strain. Employees who have a weight loss over a work shift of more than 1.5% 

body weight have been shown to be at increased risk for HRI [ACGIH 2014]. Employees 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 5

were weighed before and after each work shift on a Seca TraveliteTM Model 803 digital scale. 

Employees were not weighed on rest days.

Heat Stress Assessment

To measure the environmental conditions that contribute to heat stress, we used a Quest 

Technologies QUESTemp°36 instrument to obtain the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) 

at each work location and in cooling areas. The WBGT measurements were datalogged 

at 1-minute intervals during the entire workday and also manually recorded by National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) investigators on a daily activity log for 

each task. The daily activity log was also used to describe each work task, its duration, and 

its estimated metabolic load (exertion level), and rest breaks. We classified metabolic loads 

as rest, light, moderate, heavy, and very heavy on the basis of NIOSH and ACGIH heat stress 

criteria, which are the same [NIOSH 2013; ACGIH 2014]. Because heat stress occupational 

exposure limits (OELs) are based on 1-hour averages, we selected three employees whose 

results (on day 1) showed three different exposure scenarios: (1) CBT and heart rate above 

the excessive heat strain criteria, (2) heart rate above the excessive heat strain criteria, and 

(3) no CBT or heart rate above the excessive heat strain criteria. We grouped their work 

tasks into approximately 1-hour time periods over 1 day. We then calculated time-weighted 

average (TWA) exposures for the duration of each task and the average estimated metabolic 

rate, and compared it to work and rest schedules recommended by NIOSH and ACGIH 

for acclimatized employees. All employees wore cotton work uniforms, so no clothing 

adjustment to the WBGT was necessary [ACGIH 2014].

Records Review

We reviewed the park’s current and proposed heat stress policies and OSHA’s Form 300 Log 

of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses from 2008–2012. 

Results and Discussion

Questionnaire

Nine employees (eight male and one female) participated in our evaluation. Their average 

age was 46 years (range: 28–59 years). The average duration of employment at this park was 

8 years (range: 2–23 years). Participants included 5 of 10 road maintenance employees, 1 of 

2 bricklayers, 2 of 2 housing maintenance employees, and 1 of 1 archaeologist.

Two employees reported taking an unscheduled break or leaving work early in the last year 

because they felt sick from the heat, but neither employee reported seeking medical care. 

None of the employees reported ever having been diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis. No 

employee reported leaving work for HRI symptoms in the past year working at this park. 

No employee reported being treated at an emergency department for HRI since they started 

work at this park. One employee reported headache, dark urine, decreased urine production, 

and feeling like he had a fever during the week prior to our evaluation. No other symptoms 

consistent with HRI or rhabdomyolysis were reported in the week prior to our evaluation.
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Employees were asked about their use of medications, supplements, or beverages that could 

increase risk of HRI or rhabdomyolysis in the 2 weeks prior to our evaluation. One employee 

reported taking creatine supplements, one reported taking antihistamines, and two reported 

taking decongestants. Eight of the nine employees reported having a caffeinated beverage 

within the previous 2 weeks. Six employees reported drinking caffeinated soda, with an 

average daily intake of 1.5 cans of soda. Five reported drinking coffee, with an average daily 

intake of 1.8 cups of coffee. Two employees reported drinking energy drinks, with an average 

daily intake of 1.75 cans. Five employees reported engaging in intense recreational physical 

activity including weight lifting, circuit training, swimming, and working at a gym.

All employees reported adequate access to water or other hydration fluids during the 

workday. Although employees were given a trial use of cooling vests, none reported routine 

use of them after the trial. Reasons given for not continuing use of cooling vests included: 

too heavy (seven employees); caused a decrease in range of motion (three employees); 

not available or not offered after the initial trial (three employees); or not effective (two 

employees). Write-in responses for this question included: “uncomfortable,” “have other 

means of cooling body,” “was driving all day,” and “never really wanted to.” “Driving all 

day” meant that the employee spent the day in a vehicle equipped with air-conditioning.

Daily Symptom Surveys

One employee reported headache on 3 days; no other employees reported symptoms 

consistent with HRI. One employee reported unusual soreness in the legs on one day and 

one reported darker than normal urine on one day; no other employees reported symptoms 

consistent with rhabdomyolysis. 

The post-shift symptom survey also asked employees to estimate their total fluid intake 

over that day’s work shift. Employees reported an average intake of 135 ounces or more per 

day, but intake as low as 67 ounces was reported. The parks current heat stress management 

policy advised employees to drink “approximately 24 to 32 ounces of cool water/electrolyte 

drink every hour.” The policy did not differentiate between office workers and those engaged 

in strenuous outdoor tasks. We did not include office workers or other park employees that 

worked primarily indoors as part of our evaluation.

Blood Analysis for Markers of Rhabdomyolysis and 

Dehydration

No employee met our criteria for rhabdomyolysis or dehydration during our evaluation. 

One employee had brief elevations of CK above the normal range but below the cut-off for 

rhabdomyolysis. We referred two employees to their personal healthcare provider because 

they did not have two successively declining CK values on the rest days, although their 

values were within the normal reference range. These two employees did not follow up on 

our referral. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 7

Heat Strain

Table 1 summarizes the number of employees identified as having excessive heat strain 

according to our criteria. Peak CBTs were 97.1°F to 101.6°F, and all but one employee were 

below our criterion for excessive heat strain (101.3°F) (Appendix B, Table B1). However, 

five of the nine employees had a heart rate exceeding the excessive heat strain criterion 

during our 4-day evaluation (Appendix B, Tables B1–B9). One employee had weight loss 

over the shift exceeding 1.5% of their body weight on 2 days. 

Table 1. Employees meeting our evaluation criteria for excessive heat strain

Heat strain criterion Employees who met criteria at any

time during testing (n = 9)

Heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes 5

CBT > 101.3°F 1

Symptoms of sudden and severe fatigue, nausea,

headache, dizziness, rash, feeling faint, or lightheadedness

3

Weight loss over a shift > 1.5% of body weight 1

Heat Stress

The WBGT measured over the 4 workdays ranged from 56.3°F to 101.6°F. The WBGT value 

is not the same as the measured air temperature. This is because the WBGT value includes 

humidity, radiant heat, and wind speed to provide an index of the environmental conditions 

in which a person works. Appendix B, Tables B1–B9 present the WBGT, estimated metabolic 

rate, CBT, and maximum sustained heart rate (for 3 or more minutes) for each employee 

by task over the 4 days of our evaluation. Because these tasks varied, we calculated timeweighted averages for WBGT and metabolic rates and compared these results to 1-hour work 

and rest schedules recommended by NIOSH and ACGIH (both are the same) [NIOSH 2013; 

ACGIH 2014]. Examples of these task-based, time-weighted averages for day 1 for three 

employees are shown in Tables 2–4. 

On multiple occasions within and across workdays, some employees exceeded the excessive 

heat strain criteria (Appendix B, Tables B1–B5). This usually happened at lower elevation 

work sites where the WBGT was high (e.g., WBGT > 85°F) or when employees engaged 

in moderate to heavy work (e.g., extended walking, bricklaying, tree trimming, shoveling/

handling rocks and asphalt). In some of these instances (Tables 2–4), these tasks were 

performed longer than the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) work/rest schedule 

(Appendix C, Figure C1). However, other employees performed moderate to heavy tasks 

under elevated WBGT conditions and did not follow the NIOSH recommended work/rest 

schedule, yet they did not exceed either the CBT or heart rate criterion (Appendix B, Tables 

B6–B9). One employee exceeded the NIOSH heat stress ceiling limit (Appendix C, Figure 

C1) during mortar mixing and bricklaying on day 3 when the WBGT was 97.8°F but did not 

exceed the excessive heat strain criteria used for this evaluation (Appendix B, Table B8).
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table 2. Heat stress and strain by task* for employee A, day 1

Description of task Duration

(minutes)

Average Exceed

(Yes/No)

Recommended

1-hour work/rest

schedule

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate†

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT‡

Max

HR§

Drive to worksite with AC

on, walk to worksite

50 197 79.2 No No 60/0

Walk around worksite,

walk to 2nd worksite

60¶ 228 87 No No 45/15¶

Break; walk to worksite,

walk back to vehicle

55¶ 253 91.9 Yes Yes 15/45¶

Drive to 3rd worksite with

AC on, walk to worksite,

walk around worksite

78 171 87.5 No No 60/0

Lunch in AC, drive to 4th

worksite, walk to/from

worksite

80 230 86.2 Yes Yes 60/0

Drive back to staging

area

50 109 68.4 No No 60/0

AC = Air-conditioning

*Individual tasks (from Appendix B, Table B1) were grouped into approximately 1-hour periods. 

†Metabolic rate adjusted by the weight of the employee

‡101.3°F 

§Sustained heart rate for 3 or more minutes during task > 180 minus age in years 

¶Bolded values indicate tasks that were performed longer than the NIOSH REL guidelines for

working and resting over a 1-hour period (Appendix C, Figure C1).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 9

Table 3. Heat stress and strain by task* for employee C, day 1

Description of task Duration

(minutes)

Average Exceed

(Yes/No)

Recommended

1-hour work/rest

schedule

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate†

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT‡

Max

HR§

Drive to worksite with AC

on, walk to worksite

24 174 79 No No 60/0

Raking, trimming

brush/trees

60¶ 453 85.4 No Yes 30/30¶

Take break outdoors,

rake, trim brush/trees

70¶ 293 90.1 No Yes 15/45¶

Take break outdoors,

rake, trim brush/trees

30¶ 221 93.8 No Yes 15/45¶

Take break outdoors,

rake, trim brush/trees

60¶ 290 91.4 No Yes 15/45¶

Lunch outdoors 60¶ 174 92.1 No No 15/45¶

Rake, trim brush/trees,

take break outdoors

65¶ 421 90.3 No Yes 15/45¶

Take break outdoors 75 174 84.5 No No 60/0

Drive to staging area

with AC on

20 174 68.4 No No 60/0

*Individual tasks (from Appendix B, Table B3) were grouped into approximately 1-hour periods. 

†Metabolic rate adjusted by the weight of the employee

‡101.3°F 

§Sustained heart rate for 3 or more minutes during task > 180 minus age in years

¶Bolded values indicate tasks that were performed longer than the NIOSH REL guidelines for

working and resting over a 1-hour period (Appendix C, Figure C1).
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table 4. Heat stress and strain by task* for employee H, day 1

Description of task Duration

(minutes)

Average Exceed

(Yes/No)

Recommended

1-hour work/rest

schedule

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate†

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT‡

Max

HR§

Drive to worksite with AC

on, move equipment,

mix mortar, lay bricks

60¶ 401 86.4 No No 30/30¶

Take break indoors with

AC on, mix mortar, lay

bricks

75¶ 392 86.6 No No 30/30¶

Take break indoors with

AC on, mix mortar, lay

bricks

70¶ 392 89.2 No No 15/45¶

Lay brick, light

shoveling, move brick,

lunch indoors with AC on

60 220 82.4 No No 60/0

Lay brick, cut brick, take

break indoors with AC

on

145¶ 428 87 No No 15/45¶

Lay brick, move

equipment, drive to

staging area with AC on

70¶ 408 86.7 No No 30/30¶

*Individual tasks (from Appendix B, Table B8) were grouped into approximately 1-hour periods. 

†Metabolic rate adjusted by the weight of the employee

‡101.3°F

§Sustained heart rate for 3 or more minutes during task > 180 minus age in years

¶Bolded values indicate tasks that were performed longer than the NIOSH REL guidelines for

working and resting over a 1-hour period (Appendix C, Figure C1).

OSHA Injury and Illness Logs

We reviewed the OSHA Logs from 2008–2012. The entries were primarily sprains, strains, 

lacerations, and bruises. We found one case of HRI in 2012 in which a park ranger suffered 

heat stroke. There were no cases of rhabdomyolysis. 

After our on-site evaluation, we received a report about a park employee working as 

a heavy equipment operator who died on duty on September 19, 2013. Park officials 

confirmed that the autopsy listed “heat-related illness” as a primary factor in this fatality. 

This employee was reportedly working alone on the date of death. Meteorological records 

showed a high temperature of 107°F in the park on the day of the incident and daily high 

temperatures of 115°F on 3 of the 4 days prior to the incident. This employee had not 

participated in our evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 11

Heat Stress Policy Review

We reviewed the park’s current and proposed heat stress policies. The policies were similar 

in content. However, new sections of the draft policy included the following requirements:

1. Hydration fluid intake rate: the rate was changed from 24–32 ounces per hour to 5–7 

ounces every 15–20 minutes. Neither policy recommends a scaled increased of fluid 

intake based on work tasks or on expected metabolic rates during a given time period. 

2. Assignment of work/rest cycles: supervisors are instructed to use “resting, light, 

moderate, heavy, and very heavy” work levels to assign work/rest cycles in various 

environmental conditions, as is stated in the ACGIH Heat Stress Monitoring Criteria 

[ACGIH 2014].

3. Use of vehicles as cooling stations during extreme heat: the policy recommends 

at least one air-conditioned vehicle remain running during extreme heat to 

allow employees with signs or symptoms of excessive heat strain to sit in until 

symptoms diminish. Cooling vehicles were also recommended for Emergency 

Medical Service/Fire personnel wearing turnout gear or Hazmat suits responding to 

incidents in the park.

4. Acclimatization criteria: the policy states that employees who have been off work 

for 4 or more days would not need to reacclimatize “if they remained in a similar 

heat environment.”

The current and proposed policies contain the following elements:

1. Use of a WBGT instrument to determine risk to employees and visitors. Three risk 

levels are defined using the heat index measurement obtained from the WBGT. These 

risk levels guide the frequency of employee “self-monitoring” as follows:

Level One: WBGT heat index > 76°F — Risk of heat-related illness present 

 → employees should self-monitor every hour.

Level Two: WBGT heat index > 82°F — High risk of heat-related illness 

present → employees should self-monitor every half hour.

Level Three: WBGT heat index > 90°F — Extreme risk of heat-related 

illness present → employees should self-monitor every quarter hour.

2. “Self-monitoring” is not clearly defined in either policy. Both policies contain 

identical sections titled “Heat Strain Monitoring” in which signs and symptoms of 

HRI are reviewed, weight change monitoring is discussed, and heart rate monitoring 

using two parameters, peak sustained heart rate defined as 180 minus age, and a 

resting heart rate determined after 1 minute of sitting at rest, are described. The 

policies state that a resting heart rate of greater than 110 bpm is considered elevated 

and that the employee should remain at rest until their heart rate is less than 90 bpm. 

At that time, the policy states they may resume work “at a reduced rate/speed.” In 

both policy documents, Appendix A describes a third heart rate parameter, denoted 

as “recovery heart rate,” which recommends that following a “normal work cycle” 

employees should compare their heart rate taken after 3 minutes of “seated rest” to 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

their heart rate after resting for 1 minute. However, the policy doesn’t explain how to 

interpret the recovery heart rate, or what to do if that number is greater than a specific 

value. Finally, no recommendation to seek medical attention is mentioned for any 

specific heart rate value.

3. Weight change monitoring is also described in the Heat Strain Monitoring sections, 

which state that “daily and work shift weight changes are measured” and that 

scales should be available at the maintenance center and three other park offices for 

employees to use. 

4. In Appendix A of both policy documents, “Additional Heat Strain Monitoring 

Criteria,” it states that “accurate temperature measurement in the field is somewhat 

impractical.” Neither policy specifies which self-monitoring parameter (heart rate vs. 

oral temperature vs. weight or which of the three heart rate parameters mentioned) 

employees should use to self-monitor under each of the defined heat risk levels.

5. In addition, the policies state that supervisors are responsible for “monitoring 

employees to determine if they are properly self-monitoring and mitigating for 

heat stress.” As worded, this provision raises several issues of concern that are not 

addressed such as:

● No indication of how often the WBGT measurement should be made, who should 

be making the measurement (employee, safety manager, or supervisor), or where 

the records of these measurements are to be kept. 

● No recommendation for a medical evaluation for employees with elevated heart 

rate parameters (peak, resting, or recovery).

● No indication of where to keep digital thermometers. 

● Conflicting recommendations for frequency of oral temperature checks – for selfmonitoring parameter to assess heat risk levels, the policies recommend every 15, 

30, or 60 minutes during work depending on the heat risk level; Appendix A of the 

policy documents states employees should “use a digital thermometer right after 

stopping work but before drinking anything.”

● No discussion of metabolic workload associated with different tasks (e.g., 

shoveling is considered a “heavy” workload) or the relationship between WBGT

and metabolic workload. Use of an alternative risk assessment method based on 

the National Weather Service forecasted high temperatures for the day, when no 

WBGT is available. The use of the forecasted high temperature provided by the 

National Weather Service can be helpful to the safety manager to alert employees 

of potentially hazardous heat stress conditions. Such information could be used to 

inform employees working outdoors, every day prior to beginning their shift.

● “Use of the buddy system at all times.” Working in pairs, or in a group, is an 

important aspect of employee safety in hot environments.

● Adaptable work/rest cycles, adjusted to the heat and the workload. This portion 

of the policy is critical to reducing the heat stress burden on the employee and 

should be reinforced during pre-shift meetings. As a guideline, the NIOSH criteria 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 13

document provides a chart that suggests appropriate work/rest schedules on the 

basis of metabolic workload and the WBGT (Appendix C, Figure C1).

● “Adjust work schedules so that moderate to very heavy work is performed during 

the cooler parts of the day or in the evening.” 

6. Appendix B of both policies is titled “Personal Risk Factors Evaluation Checklist” 

which contains a list of “personal risk factors that may affect [employees’] heat 

tolerance.” Several issues of concern are noted here:

● In this section employees who work in “hot conditions” are “recommended” to 

consult their physician. Neither version of the appendix specifies what criteria are 

used to define “hot conditions” so it may not be clear to employees if they fall 

under this category.

● Although the policies recognize that “short and long-term health factors that may 

affect heat tolerance”, no guidance is given regarding implementation of initial 

and periodic examinations by a physician for employees who work outdoor during 

extreme heat conditions. A helpful example of a medical pre-placement evaluation 

form which was used during NIOSH’s response to DeepWater Horizon Oil 

Spill Disaster can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/

preplacement.html.

Observations

During our visit, we observed little compliance with the current heat stress policy among 

employees and supervisors. We did not observe any employee self-monitoring (checking 

their pulse or taking their own temperature) nor any supervisor determining if the employees 

were self-monitoring. We did not see any weighing scales, or hear reports that employees 

were routinely monitoring their cross-shift weight changes. We did note that in every 

restroom there was a poster urging employees and visitors to compare their urine color to a 

color chart to determine if they were dehydrated. The chart also encouraged additional fluid 

intake. We observed outdoor maintenance work and archeological assessments occurring 

under “environmental conditions deemed unacceptable” (e.g., air temperatures greater than 

120°F) by both the current and proposed heat stress policies. We also observed employees 

working alone. None of the employees we observed was following a set work/rest cycle (e.g., 

work 45 minutes then rest 15 minutes) on the basis of environmental conditions as noted 

in the current policy, which uses NIOSH heat stress guidelines [NIOSH 2013]. All of the 

observed employees took rest breaks and drank fluids at their own discretion. 

We observed employees shoveling rocks, laying brick, and trimming trees regardless of the hour 

of the day or the environmental conditions. No vehicles were left running to provide employees 

access to a cool environment to rest and recover. When a vehicle that had been parked in a shaded 

area was started, we noted that it took about 30 minutes for the interior to cool. 

Neither the current nor proposed heat stress policy explicitly states that an employee or 

groups of employees must have a radio within reach during working hours to call for 

assistance or to hear calls from other employees. We saw radios being shared and stored out 

of hearing range. 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Communication between employees and the safety manager needs to be improved. We saw 

instances where work locations were changed without notifying the safety manager, despite 

the requirement to do so in the heat stress policy. We observed multiple instances of park 

employees working alone, despite the mandatory “buddy system” policy. Employees who 

routinely worked alone were not required to submit the location(s) of work sites and no 

preset radio “welfare checks” occurred during the workday. If individuals working alone had 

become incapacitated, no one would know that individual was having a problem until they 

failed to report at the end of the workday or know where to look for them. Soon after our site 

visit, a heat-related death occurred in an employee who died while working alone.

Evaluation Limitations

This evaluation has the following limitations. We assessed a small number of employees 

(nine) over 4 days. We did not evaluate all job titles in the park. We may not have evaluated 

worst-case environmental conditions because a storm that occurred on two of the four testing 

days resulted in cooler than normal daily temperatures. 

Conclusions 

The potential exists for heat stress and excessive heat strain in employees at this park. 

Employees performed moderate to heavy tasks in elevated WBGT conditions for longer 

periods of time than are recommended by NIOSH (Appendix C, Figure C1). In one instance 

the NIOSH ceiling limit for heat stress was exceeded. We found employees who met criteria 

for excessive heat strain. However, despite working in extreme environmental conditions, 

some employees were able to perform tasks without showing signs of excessive heat strain. 

No employee we evaluated developed dehydration, rhabdomyolysis, or significant HRI.

The current and proposed heat stress policies are in need of adjustments such as improving 

access to and use of radios, notifying the safety manager of changing work locations, and 

using the buddy system. The heat stress management policies should be written in plain 

language. Park managers should work with employees to develop a workgroup to make 

decisions on employee self-monitoring options, as well as develop standard operating 

procedures for heat stress and heat strain monitoring, including a method for daily 

documentation and review of employees’ self-monitoring. Preventing excessive heat strain 

and HRI will require a combination of risk management approaches such as avoiding 

moderate to heavy work during hot summer months, and if this work is necessary, having it 

performed only during the cooler nighttime hours. 

Recommendations 

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed below. We encourage this 

park to use a labor-management health and safety committee or working group to discuss 

our recommendations and develop an action plan to address heat stress and strain. Those 

involved in the work can best set priorities and assess the feasibility of our recommendations 

for the specific situation at this park. The next version of the heat stress policy should include 

standard operating procedures for monitoring for heat stress, including a method for daily 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 15

documentation and review of employees’ self-monitoring and actual work practices and 

metabolic workloads. Additional recommendations can be found in the NIOSH document 

“Preventing Heat-related Illness or Death of Outdoor Workers” at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/wp-solutions/2013-143/pdfs/2013-143.pdf and on OSHA’s website which gives guidance 

on heat stress prevention in outdoor workers at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/.

Our recommendations include administrative controls, which refer to employer-dictated work 

practices and policies to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends 

on employer commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement 

are necessary to ensure that policies and procedures are followed consistently.

1. Provide WBGT measuring instruments to those employees, or groups of employees 

who will be working outdoors during periods of extreme heat. These employees 

should be trained on the instrument operation and the interpretation of results. The 

instrument should operate continuously during the work shift and be checked hourly 

when forecasted temperatures exceed those outlined in the heat stress policy. Using 

the WBGT and estimated metabolic heat load, consult the NIOSH guidance on 

appropriate work/rest cycles (Appendix C, Figure C1). Reduce the duration of work, 

and enforce mandatory rest breaks if moderate to heavy work under extreme WBGT

conditions must be performed. NIOSH recommends that protective clothing and 

equipment should be provided to the employees when the total heat stress exceeds the 

ceiling limit.

2. Develop a workgroup of employees, the safety manager, and a medical advisor to 

decide among options and develop standard operating procedures for self-monitoring 

during periods of extreme heat. Several options are available which may improve 

compliance and accuracy, each with their own strengths and limitations. Wearing heart 

rate monitors (such as those worn on the wrist by runners), using oral or tympanic 

thermometers periodically to monitor body temperatures, measuring pre-and post-shift 

weight, are options to consider.

3. Schedule strenuous outdoor work such as road repair/replacement, bricklaying, and 

tree-trimming for cooler months. If these activities must occur during the summer, 

then they should be performed at night or early in the morning.

4. If possible, stop work outdoors and inside buildings without air-conditioning during 

extreme heat advisories and apply this policy consistently to all park employees.

5. Continue to train employees to recognize early signs and symptoms of HRI 

in themselves and their coworkers. Instruct employees to tell their supervisor 

immediately if they develop any symptoms or if they notice any signs or symptoms in 

their coworkers. (This practice illustrates the importance of using the buddy system.)

6. Continue to allow employees to take rest breaks and fluid intake as needed. Update the 

heat stress policy to allow for these unscheduled breaks by clarifying that that work/

rest cycle guidelines should be adjusted as needed.

7. Enforce the heat stress policy of having at least one vehicle equipped with airconditioning running at all times. This vehicle will provide a cooling area for 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

employees who do not have immediate access to an air-conditioned space at their work 

location during periods of extreme heat (ambient air temperature > 100°F). Ensure that 

carbon monoxide from vehicle exhaust does not pose a hazard inside the vehicle or in 

an unventilated building near the idling vehicle.

8. Supply additional water to employees so they can wet their work clothes during the 

workday when temperatures are high. Wetting clothing aids evaporative cooling and 

should be done frequently in low relative humidity environments.

9. Establish a procedure for communication between the safety manager and employees 

or work crew supervisors so that work locations are known. If changes are made, the 

safety manager should be notified so that she or he can make an informed decision 

regarding potential work stoppages.

10.Enforce the buddy system as outlined in the heat stress policy. If solitary work is 

unavoidable, ensure employees have a radio with them at all times, submit their 

work schedule/locations to their supervisor and safety manager, and arrange for 

periodic welfare checks over the radio. Other park employees should keep radios 

within hearing distance so that a call for assistance can be heard and responded to 

without delay.

11.Discourage employees from hydrating with drinks containing large amounts 

of caffeine (totaling more than the equivalent of 6 cups of coffee per day) or 

large amounts of sugar during work. This may worsen dehydration and increase 

rhabdomyolysis risk.

12.Implement a mandatory initial and periodic medical examination performed by a 

physician for employees who work outdoor during extreme heat conditions.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 17

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and 

Health Effects 

Heat Stress

NIOSH defines heat stress as the sum of the heat generated in the body (metabolic heat) plus 

the heat gained from the environment (environmental heat) minus the heat lost from the body 

to the environment, primarily through evaporation [NIOSH 2013]. Many bodily responses 

to heat stress are desirable and beneficial because they help regulate internal temperature 

and, in situations of appropriate repeated exposure, help the body adapt (acclimatize) to the 

work environment. However, at some stage of heat stress, the body’s compensatory measures 

cannot maintain internal body temperature at the level required for normal functioning. As 

a result, the risk of heat-related illnesses, disorders, and accidents substantially increases. 

Increases in unsafe behavior, which may lead to accidents, are also seen as the level of 

physical work of the job increases [NIOSH 1986].

Many heat stress guidelines have been developed to protect people against heat-related 

illnesses. The objective of any heat stress index is to prevent a person’s CBT from rising 

excessively. The World Health Organization concluded that, “it is inadvisable for CBT to 

exceed 100.4°F or for oral temperature to exceed 99.5°F in prolonged daily exposure to 

heavy work and/or heat.” Additionally, a CBT of 102.2°F should be considered reason to 

terminate exposure even when CBT is being monitored [NIOSH 1986]. This does not mean 

that an employee with a CBT exceeding those levels will necessarily experience adverse 

health effects; however, the number of unsafe acts increases as does the risk of developing 

heat stress illnesses [NIOSH 1986].

NIOSH recommends controlling total heat exposure so that unprotected healthy employees 

are not exposed to metabolic and environmental heat combinations that exceed the 

applicable NIOSH criteria. These criteria state that most healthy employees who work in hot 

environments and are exposed to combinations of environmental and metabolic heat below 

the NIOSH recommended action limit for non-acclimatized employees or the NIOSH REL 

for acclimatized employees should be able to tolerate total heat stress without substantially 

increasing their risk of incurring acute adverse health effects. Also, no employee should be 

exposed to metabolic and environmental heat combinations that exceed applicable ceiling 

limits without being provided with and properly using appropriate and adequate heatprotective clothing and equipment [NIOSH 1986].

The 1986 NIOSH heat stress criteria document referenced above is being updated. A draft 

document was released for public comment as part of a notice placed in the Federal Register 

in December 2013 which can be viewed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-27/

pdf/2013-31066.pdf. It describes five basic preventive practices that should be followed to 

control heat stress among employees working in hot environments. These are: (1) limiting or 

modifying the duration of exposure time; (2) reducing the metabolic component of the total 

heat load; (3) enhancing the heat tolerance of the workers by heat acclimatization, physical 

conditioning, etc.; (4) training the workers in safety and health procedures for work in hot 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

environments; and (5) initial and periodic medical examination of workers to determine 

whether an individual can meet the total demands and physical stresses of the job with 

reasonable assurances the health and safety of the worker and/or fellow workers will not be 

placed at risk [NIOSH 2013].

The ACGIH heat stress guidelines use a decision-making process that provides step-by-step 

situation-dependent instructions that factor in clothing insulation values and physiological 

evaluation of heat strain [ACGIH 2014]. ACGIH WBGT screening criteria factor in the 

ability of the body to cool itself (clothing insulation value, humidity, and wind) and, 

like the NIOSH criteria, can be used to develop work/rest regimens for acclimatized and 

unacclimatized employees. The ACGIH WBGT-based heat exposure assessment was 

developed for a traditional work uniform of long-sleeved shirt and pants, and represents 

conditions under which it is believed that nearly all adequately hydrated, unmedicated, 

healthy employees may be repeatedly exposed without adverse health effects. Clothing 

insulation values and the appropriate WBGT adjustments, as well as descriptors of the other 

decision-making process components can be found in the ACGIH document “Documentation 

of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological 

Exposure Indices” [ACGIH 2014]. The ACGIH TLV for heat stress provides a framework for 

the control of heat-related illnesses only. Although accidents and injuries can increase with 

increasing levels of heat stress, it is important to note that the TLVs are not directed toward 

controlling these outcomes [ACGIH 2014].

NIOSH and ACGIH criteria can only be used when WBGT data for the immediate work area 

are available and must not be used when employees wear encapsulating suits or garments 

that are impermeable or highly resistant to water vapor or air movement. Further assumptions 

regarding work demands include an 8-hour workday, 5-day workweek, two 15-minute 

breaks, and a 30-minute lunch break, with rest area temperatures the same as, or less than, 

those in work areas, and at least some air movement. While NIOSH and ACGIH guidelines 

distinguish between safe and dangerous levels, professional judgment must be used in 

administering a heat stress management program to ensure adequate protection. OSHA does 

not have an exposure limit for heat stress. However, the OSHA technical manual’s section on 

heat stress refers to the ACGIH document for guidelines to evaluate employee heat stress and 

how to investigate the workplace [OSHA 1999].

Heat Strain

The body’s response to heat stress is called heat strain. Operations involving high air 

temperatures, radiant heat sources, high humidity, direct physical contact with hot objects, 

and strenuous physical activities have a high potential for inducing heat strain in employees. 

Heat strain is highly individual and cannot be predicted on the basis of environmental heat 

stress measurements alone. Physiological monitoring for heat strain becomes necessary when 

impermeable clothing is worn, when heat stress screening criteria are exceeded, or when data 

from a detailed analysis (such as the International Standards Organization required sweat rate 

index) show excess heat stress.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 19

The draft revised NIOSH heat stress criteria document recommends during a heat alert (area 

weather forecast for the next day predicts a maximum air temperature of at least 95°F or if a 

maximum of 90°F is predicted and is 9°F higher than the temperature reached on any of the 

preceding 3 days), that personal monitoring be done via checking oral temperatures rather 

than heart rate. Although no specific oral temperature is cited, this document refers to the 

World Health Organization recommendation that “the deep body temperature should not, 

under conditions of prolonged daily work and heat, be permitted to exceed 100.4°F or oral 

temperature of 99.5°F.” It is noted that the oral temperature is usually 0.8°F lower than deep 

body temperature [NIOSH 1986].

ACGIH considers one indicator of physiological strain, sustained peak heart rate, to be a 

useful measure of acute, high-level exposure to heat stress. Sustained peak heart rate, defined 

by ACGIH as 180 bpm minus an individual’s age over several minutes, is a leading indicator 

that thermal regulatory control may not be adequate and that increases in CBTs have occurred 

or will soon occur [ACGIH 2014]. According to ACGIH, an individual’s heat stress exposure 

should be discontinued when any of the following heat strain indicators occur:

● Sustained (over several minutes) heart rate exceeds 180 bpm minus the individual’s age 

in years for those with normal cardiac performance.

● CBT is greater than 100.4°F for unselected, unacclimatized personnel and greater than 

101.3°F for medically fit, heat-acclimatized personnel.

● Recovery heart rate at 1 minute after a peak work effort exceeds 110 bpm.

● Presence of symptoms of sudden and severe fatigue, nausea, dizziness, or 

lightheadedness.

In addition, the ACGIH states than an individual may be at greater risk of heat strain if:

● Profuse sweating is sustained over several hours.

● Weight loss over a shift is greater than 1.5% of body weight.

● 24-hour urinary sodium excretion is less than 55 millimoles.

Acclimatization

When employees are first exposed to a hot environment they may show signs of distress and 

discomfort, experience increased CBTs and heart rates, and may have headache or nausea. 

However, following repeated exposure, employees can adapt to the hot environment. This 

adaptation is called acclimatization.

Employees begin to lose acclimatization when they stop working in the heat stress 

conditions, and a noticeable loss occurs after 4 days. However, this loss is usually rapidly 

made up. Chronic illness, a short episode of mild illness (e.g., gastroenteritis), the use or 

misuse of pharmacologic agents, a sleep deficit, poor nutrition, or a disturbed water and 

electrolyte balance may reduce an employee’s capacity to acclimatize [ACGIH 2014].
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Rhabdomyolysis

Rhabdomyolysis is a medical condition associated with heat stress and prolonged physical 

exertion, resulting in the rapid breakdown of muscle which can damage the kidneys. Classic 

symptoms of rhabdomyolysis are muscle pain, cramping, swelling, weakness, and decreased 

range-of-motion of joints. One of the signs of rhabdomyolysis is dark or tea-colored urine 

[Brudvig and Fitzgerald 2007; Khan 2009; Cervellin et al. 2010]. However, symptoms vary 

between individuals and some might not have any symptoms at all [Huerta-Alardin et al. 

2005; Brudvig and Fitzgerald 2007]. 

Rhabdomyolysis is diagnosed by measurement of CK, also known as creatine phosphokinase, 

in the blood by a licensed health care provider. The severity of rhabdomyolysis depends upon 

damage to other organ systems and the peak CK level. Mild rhabdomyolysis can be treated 

by drinking lots of fluids [George et al. 2010]. Severe cases require hospitalization as the 

kidneys may fail and immediate dialysis is needed [Bosch et al. 2009]. 

It is not uncommon for individuals who engage in exertional activities higher than their 

baseline level of fitness to develop exertional rhabdomyolysis. However, it also occurs in 

highly-conditioned individuals who may engage in supramaximal exercise or who have other 

risk factors along with an exertional activity [Walsh and Page 2006].

Dehydration, Volume Depletion, and Fluid Replacement

When working in hot environments it can be difficult to completely replace lost fluids as 

the day’s work proceeds. Sweat contains water and salt, and excessive sweating can cause 

dehydration, volume depletion, and electrolyte imbalances. Volume depletion is different from 

pure dehydration and occurs when loss of both water and salt/sodium results in a reduced 

circulatory blood volume [Mange 1997]. Volume depletion also negates the advantage 

granted by high levels of aerobic fitness and heat acclimatization. Several studies have shown 

that volume depletion or dehydration increases CBT during exercise in temperate and hot 

environments. Therefore, maintaining enough water improves the body’s overall function. 

Drinking fluids is important to ensure adequate rehydration, and evidence shows that having 

drinks that taste good leads to increased consumption. Glucose-electrolyte solutions like 

Gatorade® can increase sodium and water absorption, and the glucose in these drinks 

provides energy for muscular activity [Rolls et al. 1990]. However, employees should avoid 

drinking large amounts of sugar-laden beverages in hot climates as this causes increased 

urine production that increases fluid loss through urination. Intake of caffeinated beverages 

and alcohol also increases urinary fluid loss and should be avoided. Because average 

Americans consume adequate, if not excessive, amounts of sodium in their diet, oftentimes 

only water replacement is needed. Oral electrolyte replacement formulas such as Gatorade® 

can be used for moderate volume depletion or for situations involving prolonged sweating. 

Salt tablets are not recommended. More information on heat stress and strain is available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/heatstress/.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 21

Appendix B: Tables

Table B1. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee A, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to worksite with AC on 25 109 74 — — Walk to worksite 25 285 84.4 — — Walk around worksite 30 171 87 — — Walk to worksite 30 285 87 — — Took break, outdoors 10 109 87 — — Walk to worksite 10 285 87 — — Walk back to vehicle 35 285 94.7 E E

Drive to worksite with AC on 18 109 77 — — Walk to worksite 10 285 90.6 — — Walk around worksite 50 171 90.6 — — Lunch in car with AC on 25 109 79 — — Walk to worksite 55 285 89.5 E E

Drive back to staging area with AC on 50 109 68.4 — — 2 Drive to worksite with AC on 65 109 72 — — Walk to worksite 65 285 79.2 — — Note-taking, sitting outside truck 30 109 80.3 — — Walking around worksite 20 285 79.1 — — Took break, outside 15 109 80.8 — — Walking around worksite 40 171 80.4 — — Took break, outside 15 109 80.5 — — Walking around worksite 90 171 81.5 — — Took break, outside, download data 30 109 81.2 — — Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 109 63.9 — — 3 Drive to worksite with AC on 25 109 61.9 — — Walk to worksite 20 285 87.5 — — Walking around worksite 30 285 87.5 — — Walking around worksite 50 394 87.5 — — Walking around worksite 15 394 89.5 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 20 109 69 — — Walking around worksite 60 285 93.5 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 10 109 69 — — Lunch, inside with AC on 30 109 73 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 10 109 67 — — Walking around worksite 40 285 93 — — Took break, outside 10 109 89.9 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 45 109 65 — — Survey hot buildings, no AC 30 285 94 — — Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 109 64 — — 4 Drive to worksite with AC on 60 109 66.4 — — Discuss work plan with assistant 20 109 75.9 — — Walking around worksite 70 285 84.4 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 70 109 74.5 — — Walking around worksite 105 285 94.3 — E

Drive to next worksite with AC on 25 109 74.1 — — Lunch, indoors with AC on 25 109 72.1 — — Work in office with AC on 45 109 68.3 — — Drive to next worksite with AC on 20 109 67.3 — — Walking around worksite 25 285 94.3 — — Drive back to staging area 65 109 64 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria

E = Above CBT of 101.3°F, or maximum sustained heart rate over a 3-minute period (125 bpm)
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table B2. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee B, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to worksite, AC on 60 136 66.4 — —

Measure grading, walking worksite 155 212 82 — —

Lunch outdoors 45 136 87.6 — —

Measure grading, walking worksite 175 212 86 — E

Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 136 64 — —

2 Drive to worksite with AC on 60 136 66.4 — —

Walking worksite, some shoveling 110 212 82 — E

Lunch, outdoors 50 136 85.5 — —

Walking/inspecting site 10 136 85.6 — —

Manual loading debris 20 490 86 — E

Walking/inspecting site 70 212 87.1 — E

Took break, outdoors 40 136 87.7 — —

Walking/inspecting site 40 212 88.2 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 136 64 — —

3 Drive to worksite AC on 60 136 66.4 — —

Walking worksite, checking grade 110 212 71.1 — —

Took break, outdoors 10 136 87.1 — —

Walking, inspecting site 45 212 86.4 — —

Lunch, outdoors 50 136 88.6 — —

Manual loading debris into bucket 35 354 89.9 — E

Walking/inspecting site 70 212 89.5 — E

Supervise demolition of small building 40 136 89.8 — —

Took break, outdoors 45 136 90 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 136 70 — —

4 Drive to worksite with AC on 60 136 66.4 — —

Supervise demolition, light shoveling 70 212 76 — —

Took break, outdoors 30 136 86 — —

Walking, inspecting site, light shoveling 15 212 88.9 — —

Lunch, outdoors 60 136 88.6 — —

Supervise installation of pipe 30 212 89 — E

Supervise demolition of small building 140 212 89.8 — E

Drive back to staging area with AC on 65 136 70 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria

E = Above CBT of 101.3°F, or maximum sustained heart rate over a 3-minute period (121 bpm)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 23

Table B3. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee C, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to worksite with AC on 24 174 79 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 60 453 85.4 — E

Took break, outdoors 40 174 87.1 — E

Raking, trimming brush/trees 30 453 94.1 — E

Took break, outdoors 25 174 93.7 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 5 453 93.9 — E

Took break, outdoors 35 174 89.4 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 25 453 94.2 — E

Lunch, outdoors 60 174 92.1 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 30 453 88.8 — E

Took break, outdoors 15 174 91.3 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 20 453 91.8 — E

Took break, outdoors 75 174 84.5 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 20 174 68.4 — —

2 Drive to worksite with AC on 24 174 72 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 35 453 75.8 — —

Took break, outdoors 25 174 79.5 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 46 453 79.7 — —

Took break, outdoors 35 174 85.9 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 40 453 88.3 — —

Took break, outdoors 11 174 89.4 — —

Lunch, indoors 100 174 80 — —

Raking, trimming trees, drive Bobcat 35 453 91.3 — —

Took break, outdoors 45 174 91.6 — —

Pickup/transport/unload material 30 272 93 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 18 453 94.7 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 5 174 68.4 — —

3 Drive to worksite with AC on 5 174 72 — —

Raking, trimming trees, drive Bobcat 29 272 88.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 60 174 83.1 — —

Raking, trimming trees, driving Bobcat 30 453 87.9 — E

Raking, trimming brush/trees 35 453 90 — E

Lunch, outdoors 44 174 88.3 — —

Gather tools, shovel, dig 37 174 82 — —

Took break, outdoors 20 174 88 — —

Drive Bobcat, push brush, shovel brush 12 627 92 — E

Took break, outdoors 60 174 90.5 — —

Raking, trimming brush/trees 12 453 91 — —

Took break, outdoors 55 174 91.3 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 5 174 68.4 — —

4 Drive to worksite 5 174 72 — —

General house cleaning/wiping 75 272 79.3 — —

Took break, outdoors 45 174 91.2 — —

Pick up materials with truck AC on 60 174 76.5 — —

Cleaning house 60 272 76 — —

Lunch, indoors 60 174 70.2 — —

Paperwork 34 174 96.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 10 174 68.1 — —

Drive back to staging area, office work 56 174 72.6 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria

E = Above CBT of 101.3°F, or maximum sustained heart rate over a 3-minute period (131 bpm)
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table B4. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee D, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Did not work No data collected

2 Drive to worksite with AC on 17 162 76.2 — —

Install window blinds indoors 75 254 77.8 — —

Took break, indoors 40 162 79 — —

Raking branches, debris 160 254 90.5 — E

Lunch, outdoors 40 162 90.4 — —

Raking branches, debris 40 254 91.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 20 162 91.8 — —

Loading material onto truck 18 585 90 — E

Unloading material from truck 15 585 90.6 — —

Sweeping up debris 20 254 91 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 162 68.4 — —

3 Drive to worksite with AC on 10 162 76.2 — —

Sweeping, raking, loading brush 25 423 82 — —

Took break, outdoors 30 162 82.4 — —

Raking branches, debris 45 423 83.1 — —

Took break, indoors 60 162 83.1 — —

Sweeping, installing blinds 40 254 86.1 — —

Drive truck to get supplies 30 162 75 — —

Took break, outdoors 40 162 88.3 — —

Sweeping 10 254 88.3 — —

Lunch, outdoors 44 162 88.3 — —

Hang blinds, caulk, paint 45 254 89.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 12 162 91 — —

Refinishing bathtub 20 254 89.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 25 162 91.2 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 162 68.4 — —

4 Drive to worksite with AC on 10 162 76.2 — —

Sweeping, raking, loading brush 20 254 80 — —

Took break, outdoors 10 162 82.4 — —

Loading materials 30 254 85.6 — —

Took break, outdoors 45 162 91.2 — —

Unload materials, install ceiling fan 40 254 82.3 — —

Painting, sweeping floor 60 254 68.8 — —

Lunch, indoors 60 162 70.3 — —

Fill out paperwork outdoors in shade 40 162 96.9 — —

Cleaning, vacuuming 45 254 68.1 — —

Checking swamp coolers 60 254 94.2 — —

Checking sprinkler systems 30 254 98.3 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 162 68.4 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria

E = Above CBT of 101.3°F, or maximum sustained heart rate over a 3-minute period (132 bpm)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 25

Table B5. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee E, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to worksite with AC on 60 129 73 — —

Manual shoveling, removing debris 95 336 79.9 — —

Lunch, outdoors 45 129 87.5 — —

Manual shoveling, removing debris 55 336 86 — E

Equipment maintenance 25 202 82 — —

Manual shoveling, removing debris 100 465 81.5 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 129 68.4 — —

2 Did not work No data collected

3 Drive to worksite 60 129 73 — —

Unloading materials 5 336 84.9 — —

Shovel dry sand 75 336 87 — E

Lunch, outdoors 50 129 87.1 — —

Shovel rake sand and stone 75 465 84.9 — —

Load debris into Bobcat bucket 25 336 89.1 — —

Install drain pipe, shoveling sand 45 336 89.6 — —

Took break, outdoors 45 129 89.6 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 129 68.4 — —

4 Drive to worksite with AC on 60 129 73 — —

Unloading materials 10 336 76 — —

Took break, outdoors 60 129 82.1 — —

Manually dig trench, install drainpipe 20 336 85.3 — —

Took break, outdoors 35 129 87.8 — —

Lunch, outdoors 55 129 89.6 — —

Install drain pipe, shoveling sand 25 336 89.8 — —

Took break, outdoors 25 129 90.1 — —

Installing drainpipe 95 336 90 — E

Took break, outdoors 35 129 92.9 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 129 68.4 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria

E = Above CBT of 101.3°F, or maximum sustained heart rate over a 3-minute period (127 bpm)
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table B6. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee F, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Did not work No data collected

2 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 129 73 — —

Operate Bobcat, some heavy shoveling 110 202 82 — —

Lunch, outdoors 50 129 85.5 — —

Operate Bobcat, some light shoveling 110 202 85.7 — —

Took break, outdoors 15 129 85.7 — —

Operate Bobcat 55 202 87.3 — —

Ride back to staging area with AC on 60 129 77 — —

3 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 129 73 — —

Operate Bobcat 110 202 71.2 — —

Took break, outdoors 15 129 87.4 — —

Operate Bobcat 45 202 87.8 — —

Lunch, outdoors 55 129 87.7 — —

Operate Bobcat 60 202 89.6 — —

Ride back to staging area with AC on 60 129 74 — —

4 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 129 73 — —

Unload material, digging, handling debris 70 336 76 — —

Operate Bobcat 20 202 85.6 — —

Took break, outdoors 35 129 87.6 — —

Lunch, outdoors 55 129 89.3 — —

Laying pipe, shoveling 35 336 89.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 30 129 88.9 — —

Operate Bobcat 115 202 89.9 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 129 74 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 27

Table B7. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee G, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 154 73.0 — —

Shovel, manual handling pieces of asphalt 33 556 77.4 — —

Shoveling dry sand, debris removal 85 556 83.3 — —

Lunch, outdoors 45 154 87.8 — —

Shovel, manual handling pieces of asphalt 115 556 86.0 — —

Manual handling pieces of asphalt 45 241 82.4 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 154 74.0 — —

2 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 154 73 — —

Shovel, manual handling pieces of asphalt 110 402 79.5 — —

Lunch, outdoors 50 154 85.5 — —

Manual hauling debris, load dumpster 40 402 87.8 — —

Shovel, manual handling pieces of asphalt 40 556 85.2 — —

Took break, outdoors 20 154 87.2 — —

Manual hauling debris, load dumpster 15 556 86 — —

Shoveling heavy rocks/pieces of asphalt 55 556 87.7 — —

Ride back to shop in AC truck 60 154 78 — —

3 Did not work No data collected

4 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 154 73 — —

Unload material, shovel rock/sand 20 402 76 — —

Shoveling, installing plywood 15 402 82.3 — —

Shovel, dig trench, install drain pipe 25 402 85.6 — —

Took break, outdoors 40 154 87.7 — —

Lunch, outdoors 55 154 89.2 — —

Shovel, dig trench, install drain pipe 15 402 89.8 — —

Pull fire hose, flush out pipes 15 241 89.2 — —

Shoveling, raking, walking around site 140 241 89.9 — —

Ride back to staging area with AC on 60 154 78 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Table B8. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee H, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to jobsite with AC on 10 171 73 — —

Moving equipment, laying bricks 14 447 83.9 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 36 447 91 — —

Took break, indoors with AC on 15 171 77 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 60 447 89 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 60 447 92.8 — —

Took break, indoors with AC on 15 171 74.6 — —

Laying brick, light shoveling, moving brick 30 268 90.1 — —

Lunch 30 171 74.6 — —

Laying brick, wet sawing brick, 135 447 88 — —

Took break, indoors with AC on 10 171 73.6 — —

Lay bricks, cleanup, move equipment 60 447 88.8 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 171 74 — —

2 Drive to jobsite with AC on 10 171 73 — —

Moving equipment, laying bricks 36 447 84 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 150 447 89 — —

Lunch, outdoors 30 171 90.5 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 75 447 90.8 — —

Took break, outdoors 25 171 91.4 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 60 447 93.2 — —

Took break, outdoors 30 171 95.9 — —

Cleanup 20 268 96 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 171 74 — —

3 Drive to jobsite with AC on 10 171 73 — —

Moving equip, laying bricks 60 618 85 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 60 447 88.1 — —

Took break, indoors with AC on 15 171 73 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 90 447 89.1 — —

Took break, outdoors 22 171 93.8 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 41 447 93 — —

Lunch, indoors with AC on 45 171 78 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 79 447 93.9 — —

Took break, outdoors 15 171 93.9 — —

Mixing mortar, laying brick 90 447 97.8 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 10 171 74 — —

4 Did not work No data collected

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 29

Table B9. Heat stress and strain measurements for employee I, by task

Day Task Duration

(minutes)

Metabolic

rate*

(watts)

WBGT

(°F)

Max

CBT†

(°F)

Max

HR‡

(bpm)

1 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 184 74 — —

Drive truck with AC on 28 184 80.4 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 4 184 81.2 — —

Drive truck with AC on 17 184 81 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 8 184 82 — —

Drive truck with AC on 17 184 81.5 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 4 184 82.5 — —

Drive truck with AC on 14 184 81.2 — —

Lunch, outdoors 45 184 85.5 — —

Drive truck with AC on 20 184 82.1 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 5 184 88.1 — —

Drive truck with AC on 15 184 82 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 8 184 84.2 — —

Drive truck with AC on 18 184 82 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 5 184 80 — —

Drive truck with AC on 14 184 80 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 4 184 80.9 — —

Drive truck with AC on 22 184 80.8 — —

Waiting in parking lot outside truck 5 184 79 — —

Drive truck with AC on 15 184 79 — —

Drive back to staging area with AC on 60 184 74 — —

2 Did not work No data collected

3 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 184 74 — —

Drive truck with AC on 165 184 72 — —

Lunch, outdoors 30 184 87 — —

Drive truck with AC on 75 184 72 — —

Assisting with building demolition 75 664 89.8 — —

Drive truck with AC on 60 184 72 — —

Manual pickup of residential trash cans 60 480 88 — —

4 Drive to jobsite with AC on 60 184 74 — —

Walking, standing, inspecting 70 184 76 — —

Shovel, install drain pipe 25 480 85.6 — —

Took break, outdoors 35 184 88 — —

Lunch, outdoors 55 184 89.3 — —

Digging with shovel, laying pipe 15 480 89.8 — —

Handling debris, loading dumpster 30 480 89.4 — —

Standing around 20 184 89.3 — —

Took break, outdoors 65 184 90 — —

Shoveling 45 480 90.9 — —

Drive to shop with AC on 60 184 74 — —

*Adjusted for the weight of the employee

†Maximum core body temperature of 101.3°F

‡Maximum heart rate > 180 minus age in years for 3 or more minutes during task

— = Value was below excessive heat strain criteria
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

Appendix C: Figures

Figure C1. NIOSH-recommended heat stress exposure and ceiling limits for acclimatized workers.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 31

References

Abaxis [2011]. Piccolo® Metlyte 8 Reagent Disc package insert. Union City, CA: Abaxis, Inc. 

[http://www.piccoloxpress.com/wp-content/uploads/400-7122-1RevMMetLyte8ReagentDiscPIEnglish.pdf]. Date accessed: June 2014 as February 2014 update.

ACGIH [2014]. 2014 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and 

physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

Bontempo LJ, Kaji AH [2010]. Rhabdomyolysis. In: Marx JA, ed. Rosen’s emergency 

medicine: concepts and clinical practice. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier 

Publishers, pp. 2250–2257.

Bosch X, Poch E, Grau JM [2009]. Rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury. NEJM 

361(1):62–72. 

Brudvig TJ, Fitzgerald PI [2007]. Identification of signs and symptoms of acute exertional 

rhabdomyolysis in athletes: a guide for the practitioner. Strength Cond J 29(1):10–14. 

Byrne C, Lim CL [2007]. The ingestible telemetric body core temperature sensor: a review of 

validity and exercise applications. Br J Sports Med 41(3):126–133.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) [1998]. Guideline for infection control in 

health care personnel. Am J Infection Control 26(3):289–354.

Cervellin G, Comelli I, Lippi G [2010]. Rhabdomyolysis: historical background, clinical, 

diagnostic and therapeutic features. Clin Chem Lab Med 48(6):749–756.

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Office of the Federal Register.

Department of the Army and Air Force [2003]. Technical bulletin: heat stress control and heat 

casualty management. Technical Bulletin Medical 507. Washington, DC: Headquarters of the 

Department of the Army and Air Force. 

George M, Delgaudio A, Salhanick SD [2010]. Exertional rhabdomyolysis—when should we 

start worrying? Ped Emerg Care 26(11):864–866. 

Huerta-Alardin A, Varon J, Marik PE [2005]. Bench-to-bedside review: rhabdomyolysis – an 

overview for clinicians. Critical Care 9(2):158–229.

Khan FY [2009]. Rhabdomyolysis: a review of the literature. Netherlands J Med 67(9):272–283.

Mange K, Matsuura D, Cizman B, Soto H, Ziyadeh FN, Goldfard S, Neilson EG [1997]. 

Language guiding therapy: the case of dehydration versus volume depletion. Ann Intern Med 

127(9):848–853.

McKenzie JE, Osgood DW [2004]. Validation of a new telemetric core temperature monitor. 

J Therm Biol 29(7):605–611.
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

NIOSH [1986]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hot 

environments. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 86-113. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/86-113/86-113.

pdf]. Date accessed: June 2014.

NIOSH [2013]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hot 

environments. External review draft released for public comment. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

O’Connor FG, Duester PA [2011]. Rhabdomyolysis. In: Goldman L, Schafer AI, eds. 

Goldman’s Cecil medicine, 24th ed. New York: Elsevier Saunders Publishers, pp. 700–705.

OSHA [1999]. OSHA Technical Manual, Section III, Chapter 4, Heat stress. [http://www.

osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_4.html]. Date accessed: June 2014.

Rolls BJ, Kim S, Federoff IC [1990]. Effects of drinks sweetened with sucrose or aspartame 

on hunger, thirst and food intake in men. Physiol Behav 48(1):19–26.

Sawka MN, Pandolf KB [2001]. Physical exercise in hot climates: physiology, performance, 

and biomedical issues. In: Medical Aspects of Harsh Environments. Washington, DC: Office 

of the Surgeon General at Textbooks of Military Medicine Publications. Vol 1 pp. 89–90.

Singer GS, Brenner BM [2008]. Fluid and electrolyte disturbances. In: Harrison’s principles 

of internal medicine. 17th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers, pg. 275–276. 

Walsh JJ, Page SM [2006]. Rhabdomyolysis and compartment syndrome in military trainees. 

In BL DeKoning, Recruit Medicine (pp. 165–174). Falls Church, VA: Department of 

Defense, Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, Borden Institute.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 33

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System 924120 (Administration of 

Conservation Programs), Heat stress, heat strain, rhabdomyolysis, creatine kinase, wet bulb 

globe temperature (WBGT), extreme heat, national park, desert 
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2013-0109-3214 Page 35

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace 

under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)

(6)). The Health Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance 

to federal, state, and local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent 

occupational disease or injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Disclaimer

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace 

evaluated and may not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the 

content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of 

the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Desktop Publisher: Shawna Watts

Editor: Ellen Galloway 

Industrial Hygiene Field Assistance: Karl Feldmann

Logistics: Donnie Booher 

Medical Field Assistance: Deborah Sammons, Shirley Robertson, Christine Toennis, and 

John Clark

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer and employees at the facility. The state and 

local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regional Office 

have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. 

This report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2013-0109-3214.pdf.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2014]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of heat stress, heat 

strain, and rhabdomyolysis in national park employees. By Eisenberg J, Methner M. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH 

HHE Report No. 2013-0109-3214.
To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention