Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 1

Evaluation of Carbon 

Monoxide Exposures 

During Rescue 

Operations Using 

Personal Watercraft – 

Florida

Robert E. McCleery, MSPH, CIH

Alberto Garcia, MS

Health Hazard Evaluation Report

HETA 2008-0014-3151

January 2012

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Workplace

Safety and Health

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
The employer shall post a copy of this report 

for a period of 30 calendar days at or near 

the workplace(s) of affected employees. The 

employer shall take steps to insure that the 

posted determinations are not altered, defaced, 

or covered by other material during such 

period. [37 FR 23640, November 7, 1972, as 

amended at 45 FR 2653, January 14, 1980].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page i

Report Abbreviations................................................................................................i

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation........................iii

Summary ........................................................................................................iv

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

Assessment.....................................................................................................2

Results..............................................................................................................4

Discussion.......................................................................................................7

Conclusions....................................................................................................9

Recommendations.................................................................................... 10

References.................................................................................................... 11

Contents

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments and Availability of Report................................ 3

Appendix B Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects................. 13

Appendix A Methods........................................................................................................ 12

Appendix Figures ......................................................................................................... 1

Appendix C Tables ............................................................................................................ 18
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Abbreviat

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

BEI® Biological exposure index

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

COHb Carboxyhemoglobin

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HHE Health hazard evaluation

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life and health

mph Miles per hour

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

ppm Parts per million

PWC Personal watercraft

REL Recommended exposure limit

STEL Short-term exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average

WEELTM Workplace environmental exposure level 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page iii

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) received 

an employer request for a 

health hazard evaluation 

at a county fire rescue 

department in Florida. 

The employer submitted 

the request because 

they were interested 

in evaluating carbon 

monoxide (CO) exposures 

during rescue operations 

that used personal 

watercraft (PWC).

Highlights of 

NIOSH 

Hazard Eval

What NIOSH Did

● We measured CO exposures in August 2009.

● We measured fire fighters’ exposure to CO in the air.

● We measured CO concentrations during simulated surf 

rescues using two PWC.

What NIOSH Found

● PWC can create hazardous levels of CO. The highest levels 

were when the PWC was stationary or moving at slower speeds.

● Some fire fighters’ CO exposures were above the peak 

occupational exposure limits.

● Higher PWC speeds reduced the amount of CO around the 

PWC.

● Using a rescue board helped direct exhaust away from the PWC.

What Managers Can Do

● Review the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation report 

F2006-14. The recommendations in this report may help 

prevent deaths related to PWC rescues.

● Require the use of a rescue board during responses and 

training. Response and training procedures should include 

this requirement.

● Develop a maintenance schedule for the PWC. This schedule 

should follow the manufacturer’s recommendations.

● Consider replacing older PWC with newer models that have 

emission controls.

What Fire Fighters Can Do

● Use a rescue board during emergency responses and training.

● Minimize the amount of time that PWC idle or operate at 

slow speeds during emergency responses and training.

● Maintain PWC according to the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

● Review the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation report 

F2006-14. The recommendations in this report may help 

prevent deaths related to PWC rescues.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

NIOSH evaluated CO 

exposures during 

simulated PWC 

rescue operations. CO 

concentrations exceeding 

1,000 ppm were measured 

when PWC operated while 

remaining stationary, 

at slower speeds, and 

under an increased 

load. We recommend 

using rescue boards 

during PWC training 

and rescues, minimizing 

operating PWC at slow 

speeds, maintaining 

PWC according to the 

manufacturer’s directions, 

and replacing older PWC 

with newer PWC that have 

emission controls.

Summ

NIOSH received an employer request for an HHE at a county fire 

rescue department in Florida. The employer submitted the request 

because of interest in evaluating CO exposures during rescue 

operations using PWC. This interest was generated by a NIOSH 

Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program report 

published in December 2007 that described how CO poisoning 

may have contributed to the death of a fire fighter participating in 

a surf rescue training session. That report recommended that fire 

departments with PWC rescue units evaluate CO exposures during 

simulated PWC rescue operations. In response to this request, 

NIOSH investigators evaluated CO exposures in August 2009.

We measured real-time CO air concentrations using up to three 

different methods on an older unmaintained PWC and a new 

PWC. We evaluated eight different trials (out of the water, 

stationary in the water, no wake speed [2–3 mph], non-planing 

speed [10–15 mph], planing speed [≈ 40 mph], no wake speed while 

a fire fighter held on to a tow strap, and mock rescues in calm 

water and slightly choppy water). Different versions of some trials 

were conducted with a fire fighter on the PWC as a “rescuer” or on 

the rescue board as a “victim.”

Our results show that PWC can create hazardous levels of CO, 

especially while remaining stationary, operating at slower speeds, 

and operating under an increased load (with a rescuer on the PWC 

and a victim on a rescue board). The highest CO concentrations 

measured during these trials (> 1,000 ppm) tended to be near the 

back of the PWC. Higher PWC speeds greatly reduce the amount 

of CO around the PWC. However, when the PWC slows down 

from higher speeds, the exhaust continues to move over the top 

of the PWC resulting in elevated CO concentrations at the back 

of the PWC. For both PWC tested, the use of a rescue board 

seemed to redirect the exhaust away from the back of PWC and 

the victim lying on the board. The new PWC produced lower 

CO concentrations than the older PWC. This is likely because of 

regular maintenance and stricter emission standards.

We recommend that fire departments and other agencies with 

surf rescue responsibilities review the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality 

Investigation report (F2006-14) for recommendations to prevent 

fatalities related to rescues using PWC. Recommendations relating 

to CO include using a rescue board during emergency responses 

and training, minimizing PWC idling or operating at slow 

speeds for extended periods, maintaining PWC according to the 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page v

Keywords: NAICS 922160 (Fire Protection), fire, rescue, marine, 

personal watercraft, PWC, carbon monoxide, CO

manufacturer’s directions, and replacing older PWC with newer 

PWC that have emission controls.
Page 1 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Introduct

NIOSH received an employer request for an HHE at a county fire 

rescue department in Florida. The employer submitted the HHE 

request because of interest in evaluating CO exposures during 

rescue operations using PWC. This interest was generated by a 

NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program 

report (referred to as the NIOSH fatality report) published in 

December 2007 that described the events leading to the death of a 

fire fighter participating in a surf rescue training session [NIOSH 

2007].

The NIOSH fatality report indicated that the victim, another student, 

and an instructor were participating in a 4-hour training session on 

ocean surf rescue operations. This session included 2 hours of PWC 

maneuverability drills (each student with his or her own PWC), 

a 30-minute rest period on the beach, and then 2 hours with 

each student operating a single PWC with the other student as a 

passenger. While participating as the passenger, the victim fell off 

and reboarded the PWC several times because of the rough surf. 

After a wave knocked both students from the PWC, the victim 

indicated that he was unable to reboard. The instructor attempted 

several times to tow the victim to shore using a tow strap attached 

to the back of the PWC (the rescue board was not attached). The 

PWC exhausted to the rear of the PWC near the breathing zone 

of the victim. At that point, the victim lost consciousness, and 

the instructor swam the victim to shallow water where a safety 

officer helped transport the victim to shore. While on shore, 

they called an ambulance and initiated cardiopulmonary 

resuscitation. The victim regained a heart rhythm in the 

ambulance, but never regained consciousness and died in the 

hospital a day later. The victim’s carboxyhemoglobin level was 

calculated to be approximately 20%, indicating substantial 

CO exposure. The NIOSH investigation concluded that 

exhaustion, hypothermia, and exposure to CO all contributed 

to the victim’s death. One recommendation from the NIOSH 

investigation was “...assess the significance of carbon monoxide 

exposures and carbon monoxide poisoning among operators of 

PWC during simulated rescue operations.”

The county fire rescue department asked NIOSH investigators to 

evaluate the potential for CO exposure to personnel conducting 

water rescues with PWC. In response to this request, NIOSH 

investigators evaluated CO exposures in August 2009. This 

evaluation was intended solely to assess exposures when PWC were 

used for rescue operations.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 2

Assessment

Trial Description

We measured real-time CO air concentrations on two PWC operating 

in eight different trials (out of the water, stationary in the water, no 

wake speed [2–3 mph], non-planing speed [10–15 mph], planing speed 

[≈ 40 mph], no wake speed while a fire fighter held on to a tow strap, 

and mock rescues in calm water and slightly choppy water [up to 

1-foot waves]). Planing is the point where the speed of the watercraft is 

enough to raise the hull out of the water. Different versions of some 

trials were conducted with a fire fighter on the PWC as a “rescuer” or 

on the rescue board as a “victim.” For the rescue board trials, a clip 

at the rear of the PWC attached to the front of the rescue board. The 

clip kept the front of the rescue board on top of the rear floorboard 

and out of the water, while the remainder of the rescue board was 

in the water. Additional trials were conducted in which each PWC 

dragged a victim holding on to a 2–3-foot long tow strap attached to 

the back of the PWC, and with and without a rescuer onboard.

Mock rescues were performed in calm water and slightly choppy water. 

During mock rescues the operator drove up to the victim, and the 

rescuer entered the water, moved the victim onto the rescue board, 

and held the victim while the PWC resumed moving between nonplaning and planing speeds. A number of these mock rescues were 

performed during a trial. The PWC engine was running during all but 

one of the mock rescue trials.

We conducted the trials using two PWC. One PWC was a 2002 

Kawasaki Jet Ski® 1100 STX® DI (referred to in this report as the 

“old” PWC) that was decommissioned, unmaintained, and had 

approximately 10 hours run time in the last 6 months. The other 

PWC was a 2009 Kawasaki Jet Ski® STX®-15F (referred to in this 

report as the “new” PWC) that had been recently purchased. The 

PWC exhaust described in the NIOSH fatality report exited at the 

waterline near the jet of water leaving the back of the PWC. Both of 

the PWC we evaluated exhausted near the waterline, removed from 

the jet of water and at a downward angle.

2002 Kawasaki Jet Ski® 1100 STX® DI

● 1071 cubic centimeter, 2-stroke direct fuel injection, 

3-cylinder, 130 horsepower

● 122.8 inch length by 46.5 inch width

● 692 pound weight

● 14.3 gallon fuel capacity

● Approximately 55 miles per hour top speed

● 1-star low emission rating
Page 3 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Assessment

 (continued) 2009 Kawasaki Jet Ski® STX®-15

● 1498 cubic centimeter, 4-stroke digital fuel injection, 

4-cylinder, 160 horsepower

● 122.8 inch length by 46.5 inch width

● 844.5 pound weight

● 16.4 gallon fuel capacity

● Approximately 60 miles per hour top speed

● 3-star ultra low emission rating

Sampling Methodology

For all non-stationary trials, real-time CO monitors (BW 

Technologies GasAlert Extreme Monitors, BW Technologies, Ltd., 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada) were placed at the front and back of the 

PWC and on the operator and rescuer’s personal flotation device. 

A fire fighter wore a helmet fitted with a CO monitor when playing 

the role of a victim lying on the rescue board or as the rescuer 

during mock rescues. During the stationary trials, a CO monitor 

was attached to the front of the operator’s personal flotation device 

and to the front and back of the rescuer’s personal flotation device. 

All participants wore a personal flotation device during these trials.

We used an emissions analyzer (Ferret Gaslink LT Five Gas 

Emissions Analyzer, GxT Inc., Cheboygan, Michigan) to provide a 

direct reading CO measurement in PWC exhaust during stationary 

trials in and out of the water. Additionally, we used detector tubes 

(Dräger AG, Lübeck, Germany) to measure CO concentrations. 

During the in-water stationary trial, the PWC operator moved the 

PWC approximately 10 feet from the dock and tried to keep the 

PWC as stationary as possible. The rescuer on the PWC faced the 

back of the PWC and held the emissions analyzer probe as close 

to the PWC exhaust as possible without saturating it with water. 

During the out-of-water stationary trial, each PWC was strapped 

to a trailer while water from a hose flushed through the PWC to 

clean the system of salt water. The emissions analyzer probe was 

placed directly into the PWC exhaust port.

Additional details about these sampling methods are available in 

Appendix A, and a discussion of occupational exposure limits and 

health effects is available in Appendix B.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 4

Results

Detailed air sampling results are presented in Appendices C and 

D. Tables in Appendix C present CO data (emissions analyzer and 

detector tube data) collected from both PWC while stationary in 

the water and while on a trailer removed from the water. Appendix 

D presents the real-time CO concentration data in graph form for 

each individual trial over the course of the evaluation. Both days of 

the evaluation were sunny, with temperatures in the low 90s and 

an east-northeast wind at < 5 mph.

Stationary Trials

Table 1 below summarizes the CO concentrations measured with 

the emissions analyzer and CO detector tubes when operating 

both PWC while stationary in the water and on a trailer removed 

from the water. CO concentrations from both PWC operating 

while stationary in the water were consistent with each other 

(< 100–200 ppm). This set of measurements may underestimate the 

peak CO concentration as the probe was close to, but not directly 

in, the exhaust stream because we were concerned about saturating 

the probe with water. The CO concentrations for both PWC were 

higher when operating out of the water. Initial startup of both 

PWC showed varying CO results (< 100 ppm for the old PWC and 

2,800 ppm for the new PWC), but both measured 1,300 ppm by 

the end of the trial. The initial 2,800 ppm reading from the new 

PWC could be the result of a cold start; higher concentrations 

were measured initially with a reduction over the first few minutes. 

Detector tubes showed slightly higher CO concentrations than the 

emissions analyzer during the trials.

Table 1. Summary of CO concentrations (in ppm) near the exhaust of two PWC while stationary in the water 

and on a trailer removed from the water

PWC

Stationary in the Water On Trailer Removed from Water

CO Emissions 

Analyzer (range)

CO Detector Tube 

(ppm)

CO Emissions 

Analyzer (range)

CO Detector Tube 

(ppm)

Old 2-stroke < 100–200 500 < 100–1,300* 1,500*

New 4-stroke < 100–200 100 900–2,800† Not taken

*PWC was operating on two cylinders instead of three.

†2,800 ppm reading during the first minute of startup, subsequent readings were ≈ 1,000 ppm.
Page 5 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Figures D1 (old PWC) and D2 (new PWC) present the CO monitor 

sampling data collected while the PWC was stationary in the water. 

The highest CO concentrations measured on both PWC were in 

front of the passenger (facing the exhaust holding the emissions 

analyzer). The passenger on the old PWC (> 900 ppm) had much 

higher CO peaks than on the new PWC (< 100 ppm). The operator 

of the old PWC had CO peaks approaching 100 ppm, while the 

new PWC operator showed < 30 ppm. There is no clear reason 

for the varying CO concentrations between the emissions 

analyzer and the CO monitors while the old PWC was in the 

water, except that wind may have shifted exhaust away from the 

probe during that time.

Idle, Non-planing, and Planing Speeds

Figures D3–D8 present results of the PWC trials conducted on 

both PWC with a driver and a passenger at no wake, non-planing, 

and planing speeds. As expected, the increase in PWC speed 

resulted in lower CO concentrations on all CO monitors on both 

PWC. At no wake and non-planing speeds on both PWC, the CO 

concentrations exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit (200 ppm) at the 

back of the PWC and the passenger. The CO concentration at the 

back of the passenger of the old PWC during the no wake speed 

trial reached the CO monitor limit of 1,000 ppm. However, this 

high CO concentration occurred during the transition from the 

idle to non-planing speed trial and subsequently decreased to 50 

ppm in less than 1 minute. The planing speed trial indicated CO 

peak concentrations over the NIOSH ceiling limit only after the 

PWC slowed to idle at the end of the trial, resulting in the exhaust 

moving from back to front. As Figure D7 indicates, the old PWC 

planing speed trial was stopped for roughly 2 minutes to remove 

and reset the CO monitor alarm.

Idle, Non-planing, and Planing Speeds 

with a Rescue Board “Victim”

Figures D9–D14 present the PWC trials conducted on both PWC 

with a driver and a victim on a rescue board at no wake, nonplaning, and planing speeds. Except for the old PWC no wake 

trial, the CO concentrations were < 50 ppm during all trials. The 

helmet-mounted CO monitor during the new PWC no wake 

trial measured most of the concentrations close to 50 ppm; all 

Results

 (continued
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 6

other monitors measured CO at much lower concentrations. As 

occurred during the driver/passenger trials described above, the 

CO concentrations did rise because of the exhaust traveling over 

the PWC when it slowed down at the end of the test. The CO 

concentrations measured during most of the old PWC no wake 

trial were < 100 ppm, but some peak measurements at the back 

of the PWC and on the helmet-mounted CO monitor during the 

middle of the trial were over the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm.

PWC at Varying Speeds with a Rescuer 

and Rescue Board Victim 

Figures D15–D16 present the PWC trials conducted at various 

speeds on both PWC with a driver, passenger, and victim on a 

rescue board. As Figure D15 shows, all CO monitors measured 

concentrations above the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm and 

some to the limit of the monitor (1,000 ppm) during the old PWC 

no wake trial. As the old PWC transitioned to the non-planing 

speed, the CO concentrations were drastically reduced to < 50 ppm 

until the PWC slowed at the end of the trial.

PWC at No Wake Speed with a Victim 

Holding a Tow Strap and with/without a 

Rescuer

Figures D17–D20 present the real-time CO sampling data 

collected while a victim held onto a tow strap. Because of the 

powerful propulsion force of the PWC, the victim could only hold 

onto the tow strap at no wake speeds. A rescuer was onboard a 

PWC in three of the four trials; these trials showed consistently 

high CO concentrations (peaks of > 1,000 ppm) at the back of 

both PWC, suggesting that an increased load could increase 

exhaust emissions. The helmet CO monitor on the victim showed 

overall lower CO concentrations from the new PWC with a peak 

of 85 ppm. The old PWC trial showed CO peak concentrations 

approaching the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm on the helmetmounted CO monitor.

Results

 (continued
Page 7 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Results

 (continued) Mock Rescue Trial

Figures D21–D25 present the mock rescue trials conducted in calm 

water and slightly choppy water. The mock rescues using the old 

PWC did show CO concentrations exceeding the NIOSH ceiling 

limit in calm and choppy waters. These exceedances and other CO 

peaks were measured at roughly the same time mock rescues (drop 

off and pickup) were conducted (Figures D21, D22, and D24). 

CO concentrations during mock rescues using the new PWC were 

generally less than 50 ppm (engine was off during the calm water 

trial, Figure D23) except for a peak above the NIOSH ceiling limit 

at the back of the PWC when the surf was slightly choppy. This 

peak did not coincide with a mock rescue.

Discussi

The CO concentrations measured during these trials indicate 

that PWC can create hazardous levels of CO, especially while 

remaining stationary or operating at slower speeds. The highest 

CO concentrations during these trials tended to be near the back 

of the PWC. Higher PWC speeds greatly reduce the amount of 

CO around the PWC. However, when the PWC slows down from 

higher speeds, the exhaust continues to move over the top of the 

PWC, resulting in brief periods of elevated CO concentrations at 

the back of the PWC. For both PWC tested, the use of a rescue 

board seemed to redirect the exhaust away from the back of PWC 

and the victim lying on the board. One exception occurred when 

the old PWC was underway at a no wake speed with a rescuer on 

the PWC and a victim lying on the rescue board. Although not 

directly comparable, the old PWC consistently produced more 

CO during these trials than the newer PWC. This is expected as 

the old PWC was not regularly used or maintained and was not 

manufactured under the same emission standards as the new PWC.

Trials showed that the operator is less likely to be exposed to 

hazardous CO concentrations than the rescuer or victim because 

of the increased distance from the exhaust. Although the CO 

monitor at the back of the rescuer measured high concentrations 

of CO during some trials, the CO monitor positioned in front 

of the rescuer rarely showed the same high concentrations. This 

suggests that the rescuer’s body shields him/her from exposure 

to the exhaust emissions. In general, CO monitors closer to the 

exhaust measured higher CO concentrations.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 8

Discussi

 (continued) PWC trial results while stationary and operating at slow speeds

suggest that high concentrations of CO could have been present 

in the scenario described in the NIOSH fatality report. These 

trials more closely represent the operation and speed of the PWC 

as described in the NIOSH fatality report than the non-planing 

or planing trials. Additionally, the tow strap described and shown 

in the NIOSH fatality report would put the victim’s breathing 

zone in the same general area where we measured hazardous CO 

concentrations.

CO concentrations measured during the mock rescue trials 

were lower overall than stationary or slow speed trials. This 

was especially true for the new PWC in these evaluations. The 

lower CO concentrations could be a result of the rescue board 

redirecting exhaust away, as was shown from data collected in 

other rescue board trials. Results from mock rescue trials under 

somewhat choppy water conditions did not differ from those 

conducted under calm water conditions. Further evaluation of 

PWC in conditions more consistent with those described in the 

NIOSH fatality report is needed.

This CO exposure assessment provides additional information on 

two recommendations contained within the NIOSH fatality report: 

(1) never boarding a PWC when the engine is running, and (2) 

using a rescue board. If the PWC is not operating, the potential 

for CO exposure is greatly reduced for the operator, rescuer, and 

victim during exercises or actual rescues. However, when the engine 

is shut off the operator loses the ability to steer the PWC. During 

training and emergency responses in strong surf, the inability to 

steer can be very dangerous for the operator and all passengers. 

This evaluation seems to show a reduction in the CO exposures at 

the back of the PWC by redirecting exhaust away from the victim 

when the PWC is moving slowly, but does not do this as well when 

the PWC is stationary.

This evaluation has some limitations. First, we only tested two 

PWC from one manufacturer during this evaluation. Second, the 

individual trial results and the PWC cannot be compared to each 

other because they were not operated at the same time or under 

the same environmental conditions. Third, the results from this 

evaluation cannot be directly compared to the scenario described 

in the NIOSH fatality report as trials were not conducted in the 

same conditions (surf, air and water temperature) or with the same 

equipment (PWC make/model). Finally, there were differences 
Page 9 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Discussi

 (continued) in CO concentrations between individual trials and methods.

Variations in instrument readings could be the result of (1) wind 

direction, speed, and PWC position relative to wind direction; 

(2) instrument limitations; and (3) position of samplers during 

collection (the emissions analyzer could not be placed directly in 

the PWC exhaust during the stationary trials in the water, resulting 

in a concentration difference between stationary in water and 

stationary on the trailer).

Original EPA regulations for exhaust emissions were covered 

under 40 CFR 91 (published in 1996) and were intended to reduce 

hydrocarbon and nitrous oxide emissions, but did not include CO. 

Newer exhaust emission standards that apply to 2010 and later 

model PWC engines cover hydrocarbon, nitrous oxide, and CO 

emissions [EPA 2011; 40 CFR 1045].

Previous NIOSH boating investigations have collected limited CO 

data from PWC [NIOSH 2003a,b]. In these previous evaluations, 

detector tubes and evacuated cylinders measured CO during a cold 

start. Both detector tubes measured 500 ppm, while two evacuated 

cylinders measured 124 ppm and 2,600 ppm. These measurements 

are consistent with measurements collected using detector tubes 

and the emissions analyzer during this evaluation.

Conclusion

PWC can generate CO in concentrations exceeding the NIOSH 

ceiling limit when idling, moving slowly, and when operating 

under a load. When PWC are not maintained, the amount of CO 

generated can increase greatly. At faster speeds, CO concentrations 

are considerably reduced except when exhaust moves across the 

PWC during sudden slowing. Although the CO concentrations 

measured during these trials suggest a potential safety hazard to 

personnel participating in surf rescue training sessions or rescues, 

additional studies are needed to evaluate this hazard as this effort 

was limited by the number of machines and trials.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 10

Recommendatio

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed 

below to create a more healthful workplace. We encourage all fire 

departments and other agencies with surf rescue responsibilities to 

use a labor-management health and safety committee or working 

group to discuss the recommendations in this report and develop 

an action plan. Those involved in the work can best set priorities 

and assess the feasibility of our recommendations for the specific 

situation at each fire department or agency. Our recommendations 

are based on the hierarchy of controls approach (refer to Appendix 

B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects). This 

approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing 

or removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred approach is to 

eliminate hazardous materials or processes and install engineering 

controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. Until such 

controls are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, 

administrative measures and/or personal protective equipment 

may be needed.

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are management-dictated work practices and 

policies to reduce or prevent exposures to workplace hazards. The 

effectiveness of administrative changes in work practices for controlling 

workplace hazards is dependent on management commitment 

and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement 

is necessary to ensure that control policies and procedures are not 

circumvented in the name of convenience or production.

1. Review the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation 

report available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/

face200614.pdf for recommendations to prevent fatalities 

related to rescues using PWC.

2. Use a rescue board during emergency responses and training.

3. Minimize PWC idling or operating at slow speeds for 

extended periods.

4. Maintain PWC according to the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

5. Consider PWC with emission controls as opportunities 

arise to purchase new machines. Continually assess the cost 

benefit of maintaining older equipment versus purchasing 

equipment with more effective controls.
Page 11 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Referenc

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

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.

EPA [2011]. Gasoline boats and personal watercraft. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

marinesi.htm]. Date accessed: November 2011.

NIOSH [2003a]. Engineering and physical hazards branch report: 

Carbon monoxide emissions and exposures on recreational boats 

under various operating conditions (Lake Mead, NV, and Lake 

Powell, AZ). By Earnest GS, Echt A, Dunn K, Hall R, Hammond 

D, McCammon J, McCleery R. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

NIOSH Report No. EPHB 171-05ee2.

NIOSH [2003b]. Engineering and physical hazards branch report: 

Carbon monoxide emissions and exposures on recreational boats 

under various operating conditions (Lake Norman, NC). By Echt 

A, Earnest GS, Hammond D, McCammon J, Blade L, Valladares 

R. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. 

EPHB 171-31a.

NIOSH [2007]. Fatality assessment and control evaluation 

investigation report: career captain dies from complications 

of a drowning incident due to a combination of exhaustion, 

hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning during surf rescue 

training – Washington. By Tarley J, Hales T. Morgantown, 

WV: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH FACE F2006-14.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 12

Appendix A: Metho

A Ferret Instruments (GxT Inc., Cheboygan, Michigan) Gaslink LT Five Gas Emissions Analyzer 

characterized emissions from the PWC. The five-gas emissions analyzer measures CO, carbon dioxide, 

hydrocarbons, oxygen, and nitrogen oxides. The instrument expresses CO, carbon dioxide, and oxygen 

as percentages (1% is equivalent to 10,000 ppm) and hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in ppm. The CO 

measurement range for this instrument is 0%–15.00%. For this report, percentages have been converted to 

their equivalent ppm concentrations.

CO air concentrations were measured in the personal breathing zone of rescue personnel and at general 

area locations on the PWC using BW Technologies GasAlert Extreme Monitors (BW Technologies, 

Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada) with CO sensors. All GasAlert Extreme CO monitors were zeroed and 

calibrated before each use according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. These monitors are directreading instruments with data logging capabilities. The instruments were operated in the passive diffusion 

mode, with a 1-minute sampling interval. The instruments have a detection range from 0 to 1,000 ppm.

CO concentrations were measured in the area near the PWC exhaust using detector tubes (Dräger AG, 

Lübeck, Germany) with a CO range of 10 ppm to 3,000 ppm. A bellows-type pump draws air through the 

detector tube, and the resulting length of the stain in the tube (produced by a chemical reaction with the 

sorbent) is proportional to the concentration of the air contaminant.
Page 13 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and H

In evaluating the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH investigators use both mandatory (legally 

enforceable) and recommended OELs for chemical, physical, and biological agents as a guide for making 

recommendations. OELs have been developed by federal agencies and safety and health organizations to 

prevent the occurrence of adverse health effects from workplace exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels 

of exposure that most employees may be exposed to for up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, for a 

working lifetime, without experiencing adverse health effects. However, not all employees will be protected 

from adverse health effects even if their exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage 

may experience adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a preexisting medical condition, 

and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances may act in combination with 

other workplace exposures, the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of the 

employee to produce adverse health effects even if the occupational exposures are controlled at the level set 

by the exposure limit. Also, some substances can be absorbed by direct contact with the skin and mucous 

membranes in addition to being inhaled, which contributes to the individual’s overall exposure.

Most OELs are expressed as a TWA exposure. A TWA refers to the average exposure during a normal 8- 

to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have recommended STEL or ceiling 

values where adverse health effects are caused by exposures over a short period. Unless otherwise noted, 

the STEL is a 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday, and 

the ceiling limit is an exposure that should not be exceeded at any time.

In the United States, OELs have been established by federal agencies, professional organizations, state 

and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally enforceable limits, while others are 

recommendations. The U.S. Department of Labor OSHA PELs (29 CFR 1910 [general industry]; 29 

CFR 1926 [construction industry]; and 29 CFR 1917 [maritime industry]) are legal limits enforceable 

in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. NIOSH RELs are 

recommendations based on a critical review of the scientific and technical information available on a 

given hazard and the adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH RELs can be found 

in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2010]. NIOSH also recommends different 

types of risk management practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, employee education/

training, personal protective equipment, and exposure and medical monitoring) to minimize the risk of 

exposure and adverse health effects from these hazards. Other OELs that are commonly used and cited 

in the United States include the TLVs recommended by ACGIH, a professional organization, and the 

WEELs recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, another professional organization. 

The TLVs and WEELs are developed by committee members of these associations from a review of the 

published, peer-reviewed literature. They are not consensus standards. ACGIH TLVs are considered 

voluntary exposure guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others trained in this discipline “to assist 

in the control of health hazards” [ACGIH 2011]. WEELs have been established for some chemicals “when 

no other legal or authoritative limits exist” [AIHA 2011].

Outside the United States, OELs have been established by various agencies and organizations and 

include both legal and recommended limits. The Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen 

Unfallversicherung (IFA, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 14

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and H

 (continued

Insurance) maintains a database of international OELs from European Union member states, Canada 

(Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The database, available at http://www.dguv.de/ifa/

en/gestis/limit_values/index.jsp, contains international limits for over 1,500 hazardous substances and is 

updated periodically.

Employers should understand that not all hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA PELs, and for some 

agents the legally enforceable and recommended limits may not reflect current health-based information. 

However, an employer is still required by OSHA to protect its employees from hazards even in the absence 

of a specific OSHA PEL. OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free 

from recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm [Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1))]. Thus, NIOSH investigators encourage 

employers to make use of other OELs when making risk assessments and risk management decisions to 

best protect the health of their employees. NIOSH investigators also encourage the use of the traditional 

hierarchy of controls approach to eliminate or minimize identified workplace hazards. This includes, in 

order of preference, the use of (1) substitution or elimination of the hazardous agent, (2) engineering 

controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation, process enclosure, dilution ventilation), (3) administrative controls 

(e.g., limiting time of exposure, employee training, work practice changes, medical surveillance), and (4) 

personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection). 

Control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and risk management tool, is a complementary approach 

to protecting employee health that focuses resources on exposure controls by describing how a risk 

needs to be managed. Information on control banding is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/

ctrlbanding/. This approach can be applied in situations where OELs have not been established or can be 

used to supplement the OELs, when available.

Below we provide the OELs for the compounds we measured, as well as a discussion of the potential 

health effects from exposure to these compounds.

Carbon Monoxide

CO is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials 

such as gasoline or propane fuel. The initial symptoms of CO poisoning may include headache, dizziness, 

drowsiness, or nausea. Symptoms may advance to vomiting, loss of consciousness, and collapse if 

prolonged or high exposures are encountered. If the exposure level is high, loss of consciousness may occur 

without other symptoms. Coma or death may occur if high exposures continue [NIOSH 1972, 1977, 1979, 

2010; Hathaway and Proctor 2004; ACGIH 2007]. The display of symptoms varies widely from individual 

to individual, and may occur sooner in susceptible individuals such as young or aged people, people with 

preexisting lung or heart disease, or those living at high altitudes.

Exposure to CO limits the ability of the blood to carry oxygen to the tissues by binding with the 

hemoglobin to form COHb. Once exposed, the body compensates for the reduced bloodborne oxygen by 

increasing cardiac output, thereby increasing blood flow to specific oxygen-demanding organs such as the 
Page 15 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and H

 (continued

brain and heart. This ability may be limited by pre-existing heart or lung diseases that inhibit increased 

cardiac output.

Blood has an estimated 210 to 250 times greater affinity for CO than oxygen; thus, the presence of CO in 

the blood can interfere with oxygen uptake and delivery to the body. Once absorbed into the bloodstream, 

the half-time of CO disappearance from blood (referred to as the “halflife”) varies widely by individual and 

circumstance (i.e., removal from exposure, initial COHb concentration, partial pressure of oxygen after 

exposure, etc.). Under normal recovery conditions breathing ambient air, the halflife can be expected to 

range from 2 to 6.5 hours [WHO 1999]. This means that if the initial COHb level were 10%, it could be 

expected to drop to 5% in 2 or more hours, and then 2.5% in another 2 or more hours. If the exposed 

person is treated with oxygen, as happens in emergency treatment, the halflife time is decreased again by 

as much as 75% (or to as low as approximately 40 minutes). Delivery of oxygen under pressure (hyperbaric 

treatment) reduces the halflife to approximately 20 minutes.

COHb levels vary in persons without occupational exposure to CO. Nonsmokers range from less than 2% 

to 3%, tobacco smokers range from 5% to 20%, and commuters on urban highways can have levels of 5% or 

more [EPA 1991; ACGIH 2007].

Occupational criteria for CO exposure are applicable to employees who may be at risk of CO poisoning. The 

occupational exposure limits noted below should not be used for interpreting general population exposures 

(such as visitors engaged in boating activities) because occupational standards are intended for healthy worker 

populations. The effects of CO are more pronounced in a shorter time if the person is physically active, 

very young, very old, or has pre-existing health conditions such as lung or heart disease. Persons at extremes 

of age and persons with underlying health conditions may have marked symptoms and may suffer serious 

complications at lower levels of COHb [Kales 1993].

The NIOSH REL for CO is 35 ppm for full-shift TWA exposure, with a ceiling limit of 200 ppm that should 

never be exceeded [NIOSH 1992]. The NIOSH REL of 35 ppm is designed to protect workers from health 

effects associated with COHb levels in excess of 5% [NIOSH 1972]. NIOSH has established the IDLH value 

for CO as 1,200 ppm [NIOSH 2010]. An IDLH value is defined as a concentration at which an immediate or 

delayed threat to life exists or that would interfere with an individual’s ability to escape unaided from a space.

The ACGIH recommends an 8-hour TWA TLV of 25 ppm on the basis of limiting shifts in COHb levels 

to less than 3.5%, thus minimizing adverse neurobehavioral changes such as headache and dizziness and to 

maintain cardiovascular exercise capacity [ACGIH 2011]. ACGIH also recommends that exposures never 

exceed five times the TLV (thus, never to exceed 125 ppm) [ACGIH 2011]. ACGIH recommends a BEI for 

end of shift exhaled breath analysis in nonsmoking workers (exposed to CO) of 3.5% COHb (or 20 ppm) 

[ACGIH 2011]. The BEI generally indicates a concentration below which nearly all workers should not 

experience adverse health effects. The BEI cannot be applied to current smokers because smokers have been 

shown to have COHb levels between 4% and 10% [Tomaczewski 2002; ACGIH 2007] and can exceed 15% 

in heavy smokers [Lauwerys and Hoet 2001].

The OSHA PEL for CO is 50 ppm for an 8-hour TWA exposure [29 CFR 1910.1000].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 16

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and H

 (continued

References

ACGIH [2007]. Documentation of threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. 7th ed. 

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ACGIH [2011]. 2011 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical 

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

Industrial Hygienists.

AIHA [2011]. AIHA 2011 Emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) & workplace environmental 

exposure levels (WEEL) handbook. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

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

Federal Register.

EPA [1991]. Air quality criteria for carbon monoxide. Publication No. EPA-600/8-90/045F. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kales SN [1993]. Carbon monoxide intoxication. American Family Physician 48(6):1100–1104.

Lauwerys RR, Hoet P [2001]. Industrial chemical exposure: guidelines for biological monitoring, 3rd ed. 

Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers (CRC Press LLC), pp. 474–477.

NIOSH [1972]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to carbon monoxide. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Services and Mental Health 

Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 

73-11000.

NIOSH [1977]. Occupational diseases: a guide to their recognition. Revised ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-181.

NIOSH [1979]. A guide to work-relatedness of disease. Revised ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 79-116.

NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for occupational safety and health: compendium of policy documents 

and statements. By Dames BL. 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. 92-100.
Page 17 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and H

 (continued

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. 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. 2010-168c. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date 

accessed: November 2011.

Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH [2004]. Chemical hazards of the workplace. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc.

Tomaczewski C [2002]. Carbon monoxide. In: Goldfrank’s toxicologic emergencies, 7th ed. Goldfrank L, 

Flomenbaum NE, Lewin NA, Howland MA, Hoffman RS, Nelson LS, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 

1478–1491.

WHO [1999]. Environmental health criteria 213 - carbon monoxide (Second Edition). World Health 

Organization, Geneva. ISBN 92 4 157213 2 (NLM classification: QV 662). ISSN 0250-863X.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 18

Appendix C: Tab

Table C1. CO concentrations from the 2-stroke old PWC exhaust while stationary in the water and while on a 

trailer removed from the water

Stationary in the Water On Trailer Removed from Water†

Time (military) CO Emissions 

Analyzer (ppm)*

CO Detector 

Tube (ppm) Time (military) CO Emissions Analyzer (ppm)*

CO Detector 

Tube (ppm)

1522 < 100 1836 < 100

1523 200 1837 600

1524 < 100 1838 600

1525 < 100 1839 600 1,500

1526 100 1840 1,300

1527 < 100

1528 < 100

1529 < 100

1530 100 500

*Analyzer provides the CO concentration in % (two decimal places): 1.00% = 10,000 ppm.

†PWC was operating on two cylinders instead of three.

Table C2. CO concentrations from the 4-stroke new PWC exhaust while stationary in the water and while on a 

trailer removed from the water

Stationary in the water On Trailer Removed from Water

Time (military) CO Emissions 

Analyzer (ppm)*

CO Detector 

Tube (ppm)

Time (military) CO Emissions Analyzer 

(ppm)*

1554 200 1628 2,800

1555 < 100 1629 900

1556 < 100 1630 1,000

1557 < 100 1631 1,100

1558 100 1632 1,200

1559 100 1633 1,300

1560 100

1561 < 100

1562 100

1563 < 100 100

1564 < 100

*Analyzer provides the CO concentration in % (two decimal places): 1.00% = 10,000 ppm.
Page 19 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix D: Figu

Figure D1. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – stationary in the water at the dock.

Figure D2. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – stationary in the water at the dock.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 20

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D3. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph).

Figure D4. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph).
Page 21 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D5. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – non-planing speed (10–15 mph).

Figure D6. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – non-planing speed (10–15 mph).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 22

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D7. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – planing speed (≈ 40 mph).

Figure D8. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – planing speed (≈ 40 mph).
Page 23 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D9. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), victim lying on rescue board. 

Note: no rescuer on the PWC.

Figure D10. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), victim lying on rescue board. 

Note: no rescuer on the PWC.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 24

Figure D11. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – non-planing speed (10–15 mph), victim lying on rescue 

board. Note: no rescuer on the PWC.

Figure D12. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – non-planing speed (10–15 mph), victim lying on rescue 

board. Note: no rescuer on the PWC.

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued
Page 25 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D13. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – planing speed (≈ 40 mph), victim lying on rescue board. 

Note: no rescuer on the PWC.

Figure D14. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – planing speed (≈ 40 mph), victim lying on rescue board. 

Note: no rescuer on the PWC.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 26

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D15. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph) and non-planing speed (10–15 

mph) with a rescuer on the PWC and a victim on the rescue board.

Figure D16. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – planing speed (≈ 40 mph) with a rescuer on the PWC 

and a victim on the rescue board.
Page 27 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Figure D17. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), rescuer on the PWC flipped 

around to look at the victim holding on to tow strap.

Figure D18. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), rescuer on the PWC flipped 

around to look at the victim holding on to tow strap.

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 28

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D19. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), victim holding on to tow 

strap. Note: no passenger on the PWC.

Figure D20. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – no wake speed (< 5 mph), rescuer on the PWC facing 

forward not looking at victim holding on to tow strap.
Page 29 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Figure D21. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – mock rescue in calm water.

Figure D22. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – mock rescue in calm water.

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 30

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued

Figure D23. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – mock rescue in calm water, engine off.

Figure D24. Old PWC real-time CO concentration data – mock rescue in choppy water.
Page 31 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Figure D25. New PWC real-time CO concentration data – mock rescue in choppy water.

Appendix D: Figu

 (continued
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151 Page 32

Acknowledgments a

Availability of Re

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch 

(HETAB) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health 

hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted 

under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written 

request from any employer or authorized representative of 

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found 

in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such 

concentrations as used or found. HETAB also provides, upon 

request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to 

control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma 

and disease.

Mention of any company or product does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to websites 

external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of 

the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. 

Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these 

websites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were 

accessible as of the publication date.

This report was prepared by Robert E. McCleery of HETAB, 

Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies and 

Alberto Garcia of the Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch 

of the Division of Applied Research and Technology. Industrial 

hygiene equipment and logistical support were provided by Donald 

Booher and Karl Feldmann. Health communication assistance was 

provided by Stefanie Evans. Editorial assistance was provided by 

Ellen Galloway. Desktop publishing was performed by Greg Hartle.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management 

representatives of the county fire rescue department, the state 

health department, and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and 

may be freely reproduced. The report may be viewed and printed at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/. Copies may be purchased from 

the National Technical Information Service at 5825 Port Royal 

Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0014-3151

Below is a recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2012]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of carbon monoxide 

exposures during rescue operations using personal watercraft – Florida. By 

McCleery R, Garcia A. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA No. 2008-0014-3151.

To receive NIOSH documents or information about 

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at:

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

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.

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health