Development and

implementation of a Laser
Safety Program
The Office of Radiological Safety (ORS), part of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), at the Georgia
Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) was tasked with developing and implementing a comprehensive
Laser Safety Program (LSP) for Class 3B and 4 lasers. This was the first non-ionizing radiation safety
responsibility for ORS. A Laser Safety Committee (LSC) was established, a written policy and online training
developed, and hazard assessments performed. The process that was followed is described, including how
developing an accurate inventory of lasers, obtaining support from the Georgia Tech Administration, and
meeting with Chairs of departments using lasers were all crucial to the successful development and
implementation of the program.

By Gary Spichiger,
Nazia Zakir,
Christina Tabor
BACKGROUND
Class 3B and 4 laser use at Georgia
Tech has been prevalent for some time.
Gary Spichiger is the Associate Radia-
tion Safety Officer, Laser Safety Officer
affiliated with the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Environmental Health
and Safety, Office of Radiological
Safety, 770 State Street, Atlanta, GA
30332, United States
(Tel.: +404 894 8847;
e-mail: gary.spichiger@ehs.gatech.edu).
Nazia Zakir is the Radiation Safety Offi-
cer affiliated with the Georgia Institute
of Technology, Environmental Health
and Safety, Office of Radiological Safety,
770 State Street, Atlanta, GA 30332,
United States
(Tel.: +404 894 3621;
e-mail: nazia.zakir@ehs.gatech.edu).
Christina Tabor is a Health Physicist
affiliated with the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Environmental Health
and Safety, Office of Radiological
Safety, 770 State Street, Atlanta, GA
30332, United States
(Tel.: +404 894 8846; e-mail:
christina.tabor@ehs.gatech.edu).
Laser safety was first incorporated into
the Laboratory Safety Policy Manual
developed by EHS in 1995. There was
no Laser Safety Officer (LSO) until the
Chemical Safety Manager attended
LSO training in 2003. She began con-
ducting hazard assessments and regis-
tering known lasers with the State of
Georgia. EHS was often made aware of
laser use during laboratory renovation
safety reviews.
The LSP was relatively informal and
more reactive than proactive in nature.
Laser safety training was available, but
there was nothing routinely scheduled.
The Chemical Safety Managers pri-
mary responsibility was not laser safety,
and the extent of her other duties did
not allow for a proactive program.
In July 2008, ORS merged with EHS.
Before the merger, ORS handled ioniz-
ing radiation safety issues related to
radioactive material and X-ray use,
and the Chemical Safety Manager
handled all non-ionizing radiation
safety issues as well as chemical safety,
lab safety, and other items. Informal
discussions began soon after the mer-
ger about ORS assuming the LSP. At
this point, the LSP encompassed
approximately 21 researchers in 14
buildings with 50 lasers.
INTRODUCTION
In April 2009, a meeting was held to
evaluate the existing LSP and to map
out what was desired for a formal pro-
gram. This discussion included the
Assistant Vice President for EHS
(AVP for EHS), the existing LSO (Che-
mical Safety Manager), the Radiation
Safety Officer (RSO), and the Associate
RSO. The Associate RSO had previous
laser safety training as well as experi-
ence creating a LSP. It was decided that
LSO duties would be transferred to him
and that ORS would assume responsi-
bility for the LSP. The LSO attended an
Advanced Laser Safety Officer course
to augment his prior training.
The outcome of this meeting was
that the program would address the
use of Class 3B and 4 lasers, an
updated inventory would be compiled,
a stand-alone written LSP would be
developed, the creation of an LSC
would be explored, and laser safety
training would be provided for ORS
staff and additional EHS personnel.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE
PROGRAM?
At that time, 50 lasers were on the
inventory and registered with the State
of Georgia. It was known that there
were more, but how many was
unknown. The first step in the devel-
opment of the program was to deter-
mine the approximate number of lasers
that would be covered in the LSP.
A list of known and potential laser
user departments was compiled. The

1871-5532/$36.00 Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society 15
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2012.12.013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Table 1. Departments possessing Class 3B and 4 lasers.
Aerospace Engineering
Architecture
Biomedical Engineering
Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Civil Engineering
Chairs of these departments were con-
tacted by the AVP for EHS and asked
to complete a basic inventory form.
The form requested the name of the
responsible faculty/staff member, loca-
tion, laser type, and laser class. The
compilation of this updated inventory
was complete in July 2009 and boosted
the number of Class 3B and 4 lasers
from 50 to 425. Table 1 details the
departments identified as possessing
lasers to be covered by the program.
It became quite clear that bringing
everyone affected up to speed on the
new LSP would be a significant under-
taking. The number of lasers identified
and range of departments involved
made it apparent that a Laser Safety
Committee (LSC) providing multiple
perspectives would be crucial to devel-
oping a program that addressed the
diverse needs of the many depart-
ments.
EHS STAFF TRAINING
With the basic scope of the program
identified, development and imple-
mentation activities proceeded. One
of these activities was to provide laser
safety training to the EHS personnel
that would be most likely to encounter
lasers in the course of their normal
routine. The Chemical Safety Manager
and her staff perform lab inspections of
all labs, and would be a great asset to
help identify any additional labs that
contained Class 3B or 4 lasers. A third
party was contracted to provide a two-
day Basics of Laser Safety course in
August 2009 for a total of seven EHS
staff members. Those in attendance
were the AVP for EHS, the Chemical
Safety Manager and her two Chemical
Safety Specialists, the RSO, Associate
RSO/LSO, and the ORS Health Phy-
sicist.
16
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Materials Science and Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Physics
LASER SAFETY COMMITTEE
To establish the first LSC, the Chairs of
high laser-use departments were
requested to nominate a faculty member
or research staff member for a position
on the LSC. The resulting LSC was
established in December 2009 with
members from Chemistry and Bio-
chemistry, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Environmental Health
and Safety, the Georgia Tech Research
Institute, Materials Science and Engi-
neering, and Physics. The membership
term was established as three years with
a maximum of two consecutive terms
allowed. Meetings were scheduled to be
quarterly (revised to once every six
months now that the program is estab-
lished).
The primary accomplishments of the
LSC since its inception and first meet-
ing in January 2010 were the creation
and approval of the:
 Laser Safety Policy Manual (LSPM),
April 2010
 Implementation Roadmap, July
2010
 Online Laser Safety Training and
Laser Awareness Training, July 2010
 Scope of Work for Outside Contrac-
tor, September 2010
 Laser Self-Audit form, October
2011July 2012
PROGRAM NEEDS AND
REQUIREMENTS
The main goals of the LSP were:
 Comply with the State of Georgia
laser regulations
 Develop a guidance-based, suppor-
tive program with minimal formal
approvals required, based on ANSI
Z136.1-2007, Safe Use of Lasers
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2013
 Obtain and maintain support of the
Administration
 Give users tools and guidance to
work safely, including safety training
 Provide support for implementation
of the safety program
STATE OF GEORGIA REQUIREMENTS
Georgia is one of a limited number of
states possessing any formal laser reg-
ulations. Like many states laser regu-
lations, the State of Georgia
regulations do not directly cover laser
safety. They require registration of
lasers, notification of disposal or per-
manent discontinuance of use of a
registered laser, and notification of
laser related injuries.1
GEORGIA TECH REQUIREMENTS
Via casual conversations with some
laser users, the LSO learned of past
unreported laser injuries, property
damage, and unsafe work practices.
These users needed (and wanted) laser
safety guidance and easy access to laser
safety training, all based on ANSI
Z136.1-2007, Safe Use of Lasers.
Based on the scope of laser use and
the reality of laser hazards and inci-
dents, the Administration expressed
support for the program, conveying
that the program should guide the safe
use of lasers without being onerous in
its application. This support was cru-
cial at all stages of the LSP develop-
ment process.
OBTAINING BUY-IN
On a routine basis, the AVP for EHS
reports to the Executive Vice President
for Administration & Finance (EVP
for A&F) and the RSO reports to the
Executive Vice President for Research
(EVP for Research). Both the AVP for
EHS and the RSO communicated the
development of the LSP from the
beginning and relayed the anecdotal
information regarding injuries and
property damage that had been com-
municated to the LSO. As benchmark-
ing data was acquired, it was also
communicated. The support of the

Administration resulted in a LSPM,
LSC, and LSO authority memoran-
dum signed by the EVP for Research.
This memo was incorporated into the
Laser Safety Policy Manual.
In July 2010, appointments were
scheduled with the Chairs of the five
departments containing the most lasers.
The Chairs were provided with the
LSPM and a one-page Implementation
Roadmap. The need for the program
and the Implementation Roadmap
were briefly introduced and input was
solicited from the Chairs. The LSO
requested their support in communicat-
ing the program to their affected faculty
and staff members. These meetings
were successful and the program was
ready to move into implementation.
The Implementation Roadmap was
presented as a plan consisting of:
1. Identification of Laser Supervisors
and Laser Users
2. Training and registration of Laser
Supervisors and Laser Users
3. Laser inventory verification and
Laser Hazard Assessments (LHAs)
4. Addressing future purchases of
Class 3B and 4 lasers
5. Annual self-audits
With the approval of the written LSP
and the support of the department
Chairs most affected by the LSP,
advertisement of the LSP to the cam-
pus at large was undertaken. In addi-
tion to e-mails sent by the LSO to each
of the Laser Supervisors, the daily e-
mail newsletter and the faculty/staff
newspaper carried an article describ-
ing the LSP and providing the LSOs
contact information. The Facilities
Management groups quarterly news-
letter also ran an article about the LSP.
BENCHMARKING
The LSO was requested to benchmark
the LSPs of other research institutions.
He contacted eleven institutions and
asked four basic questions. A summary
of the questions and responses appears
below.
1. How many Class 3B and 4 lasers are
on your inventory? Avg. 300
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2013
[(Figure_1)TD$IG]
Figure 1. Online laser safety training.
2. Do you have a formal Laser Safety
Program? 11, Yes
3. Do you have a Laser Safety Com-
mittee? 7, Yes
4. Do you approve laser use applica-
tions? 1, Yes
This benchmarking provided confi-
dence that Georgia Tech was develop-
ing a program that would provide the
necessary safety guidance and over-
sight, but not be overreaching, in
accordance with the desires of the
Administration.
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
ORS purchased a laser power meter
along with both power and energy
sensors, as well as a UV/IR viewer.
These items were purchased to help
the LSO with LHAs and to loan to
laser users for things like laser output
determination and beam alignment.
TRAINING DEVELOPMENT
The laser safety training was developed
to address the training recommenda-
tions detailed in ANSI Z136.1-2007. It
also covered issues observed in Geor-
gia Tech laser labs and was customized
for our users. Laser users had
requested that the training be geared
toward the research environment
rather than toward industrial laser
use (as many of the existing third-party
training offerings did). It was deter-
mined that the most efficient way to
distribute the training to the large num-
ber of laser users on campus was to post
it as an online training using Georgia
Techs existing training services online
tutorial/transcript recording system.
The training started out as a PowerPoint
presentation and was modified to
include audio narration, video demon-
stration, and both progress and final
exam questions. Figure 1 shows the start
screen of this training.
LASER SAFETY PROGRAM
ORGANIZATION
The LSP is organized with the LSC
possessing overall responsibility and
authority to implement the LSPM and
related procedures. The LSO is dele-
gated the task of taking care of the
day-to-day implementation of the
LSP. The laser users are subdivided into
the categories of Laser Supervisor and
Laser User, with the Laser User under
the purview of the Laser Supervisor.
Georgia Tech allows full-time faculty
or staff members to hold the designation
of Laser Supervisor. Students (graduate
or undergraduate) are not allowed to
serve in this capacity. While some grad-
uate students may possess the knowl-
edge and skills to fulfill the duties as a
Laser Supervisor, turnover is typically
more frequent than full-time employ-
ees. The desire is to maintain a conti-
nuity of laser safety knowledge and
operations with the Laser Supervisors.
Laser Users tend to be students, though
a faculty member can be a Laser User of
a Laser Supervisor.
17

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
As with any safety program, documen-
tation is a key component of program
success and tracking. Both the Laser
Supervisors and Laser Users must first
complete a Laser User Registration
form. This form requests identifying
information such as name, depart-
ment, e-mail, phone number, position
type (faculty, graduate student, under-
graduate student) and an indication of
whether the person is registering as a
Laser Supervisor or Laser User. The
form is processed by the LSO after the
online training has been completed.
The next form is the Laser Registra-
tion form which triggers two actions.
This form requests information such as
the manufacturer, model, serial num-
ber, wavelength and other output char-
acteristics. First, the LSO will schedule
an LHA. The information will also be
added to the laser inventory and a
registration form will be completed
and submitted to the State of Georgia
by the LSO.
For Class 4 lasers, Laser Supervisors
are notified that they are required to
complete a written Standard Operat-
ing Procedure (SOP) for each Class 4
laser on their inventory. Georgia Tech
provides a laser SOP template for their
convenience.
The last major piece of documenta-
tion is the annual laser self-audit, which
is covered later in its own section.
LARGE SCALE INVENTORY
VERIFICATION AND HAZARD
ASSESSMENTS
One of the biggest challenges was fig-
uring out how to get the entire LSP up
to speed with respect to inventory
information and hazard assessments
for all laser operations. Though the
development of the LSP was a team
effort, ORS also has extensive radio-
active material and X-ray programs to
run. To complete the process in a
timely manner, a third-party vendor
would be solicited for inventory veri-
fication and to conduct LHAs on all
actively used lasers.
The bid solicitation was issued by
Georgia Tech in September 2010.
The bid was distributed specifically to
18
[(Figure_2)TD$IG]
four known laser hazard assessment
consulting companies and published
on the publicly available bid solicitation
website. The contract was awarded to
Laser Professionals, Inc. (now part of
Kentek, Inc.) in November 2010.
The consulting company verified the
inventory information for 382 lasers
and conducted 261 LHAs on actively
used lasers. During this process, the
LSO scheduled the lab visits and
escorted the consultants. The remain-
der of the laser inventory was verified
and assessed by the LSO.
The contracted activities took place
in December 2010, January 2011, and
March 2011. All audit assessments
were received at Georgia Tech by the
end of May 2011.
IMPLEMENTATION OF HAZARD
Figure 2. Improperly formatted warn-
ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ing sign.
The LSO began implementing the
hazard assessment recommendations chased alignment eyewear for these
upon receipt of the completed reports labs.
in May 2011. The recommendations The last major recommendation that
centered on hazard communication, was addressed was installation of
personal protective equipment, and appropriate window and door cover-
laser barriers. ings to prevent the laser beam from
In laser safety, hazard communica- leaving some labs and entering the
tion comes in the form of laboratory hallway. There were also cases where
warning signs, activation warning [(Figure_3)TD$IG]additional optical bench mounted bar-
signals, and equipment labels as
detailed in ANSI Z136.1-2007, sec-
tions 4.3.9 and 4.7.2 Some laser labs
already possessed the visible warning
lights at laboratory entrances indicat-
ing that a laser is in use. Many labs did
not have properly formatted warning
signs with current information, as
shown in Figure 2. In many cases, there
were no warning signs at all.
New ANSI-format laser warning
signs were created in-house and posted
at all applicable labs. For labs contain-
ing Class 4 lasers, where a lighted
warning signal at the entry is required,
red LED bicycle lights were purchased
and posted, as shown in Figure 3.
In some cases, labs were operating
without appropriate protective eye-
wear. EHS purchased at least one pair
of eyewear for each lab that had this
particular need. In other cases, a lab had
appropriate eyewear for normal opera-
tion, but had difficulty conducting beam Figure 3. Properly formatted warning
alignment with this eyewear. EHS pur- sign with warning light.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2013
[(Figure_4)TD$IG]
Figure 4. Class 4 laser setup before and after adding laser-rated barriers.
riers were needed to protect personnel
working in a laser lab (but not neces-
sarily using the laser). EHS purchased
laser-rated barrier material for these
labs. Figure 4 demonstrates one setup
before and after adding the laser-rated
barriers to an optical bench.
ANNUAL SELF-AUDITS
The last major component of the Laser
Safety Program to be implemented was
the annual self-audits. The audit packet
is organized into four primary sections.
The first section is applicable to the
laboratory (or laboratories) at large,
with emphasis placed on items such as
properly posted laser warning signs,
[(Figure_5)TD$IG]warning lights, and covered windows.
Figure 5. Laser program development and implementation timeline.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2013
The second section focuses on items
applicable to each individual laser. The
third section is a verification of the laser
inventory and the fourth is a verification
of the Laser Users currently under the
supervision of the Laser Supervisor.
The packet is generated automati-
cally from the inventory database and
e-mailed to the Laser Supervisor for
completion. The Laser Supervisor is
requested to submit the laser inventory
and laser user verification forms to the
LSO. The completed audits are filed in
the Laser Supervisors Laser Labora-
tory Notebook and are subject to
inspection at any time by the LSO. If
any audit items are found non-compli-
ant by the Laser Supervisor, those are to
be communicated to the LSO, who will
help bring the item into compliance.
The Laser Supervisor is given two
months to complete the audit, at which
time the LSO will randomly select 5%
of the Laser Supervisors for that quar-
ter to conduct follow-up inspections.
By the end of each year, the LSO will
have visited the labs of 20% of the
Laser Supervisors.
The first self-audits were distributed
in August 2012, with the first follow-up
audits by the LSO set to begin in mid-
October.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY
Figure 5 demonstrates the major com-
ponents of the program development
and implementation in timeline format.
19
[(Figure_6)TD$IG]
Figure 6. Laser program statistics as of September 2012.
Figure 6 details the status of the pro-
gram as of September 2012.
LESSONS LEARNED
The development and implementation
of a formal LSP was a time intensive
challenge that required coordinated
planning. Involving the Administration
and department Chairs early on was a
critical step in the development and
implementation of the program. Key
20
to keeping these groups informed was
the compilation and presentation of
facts about the program and the bench-
marking of the program to comparable
organizations. Another vital aspect was
creating a program that while adhering
to applicable safety standards is not
overwhelming for the user. The pro-
gram needs to be simple in its applica-
tion. It was important to take the
development step by step and to make
provision for keeping the laser inven-
tory and laser user lists dynamic. Most
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2013
importantly, the whole process requires
teamwork.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowl-
edge the hard work put into the
development and implementation of
the Georgia Tech LSP by the LSC. A
hearty thank you is also extended
to the AVP for EHS, Mark Demya-
nek, for his support. Thank you to
Debbie Wolfe-Lopez for sharing her
knowledge of the beginnings of the
laser program. Lastly, thanks are
extended to the ORS Administrative
Professional, Arlene Smith, for help-
ing keep the program moving day to
day.
REFERENCES
1. Official Code of Georgia, Annotated
(OCGA), 290-5-27-01-06.
2. American National Standards Institute/
Laser Safety Institute. ANSI Z136.1-
2007, Safe Use of Lasers. American
National Standards Institute; Orlando,
FL, 2007.