Progress towards quantifying the risk posed by today’s and future materials processing laser installations is essential if safety standards are to be adopted which are practical and yet effective. Uninformed opinion could lead to either the imposition of overly restrictive precautions which could stifle the development of new technology such as hybrid laser-robot equipment or result in a gross underestimate of the risk, with all the attendant problems for individuals and the laser supply industry as a whole, in the event of a serious mishap.

So far, the absolute quantification of risk has proved impossible in all but the simplest cases. Factors influencing this include the apparent reluctance of industry to disseminate details of laser incidents and accidents, design weaknesses and problems during operation and maintenance. This paucity of practical, operational information is exacerbated by the inadequacy of data on the integrity/reliability of key components of laser equipment and the associated safety features and systems.

Furthermore, fault tree analysis (as part of the risk assessment) has been usefully applied to several higher power/complex laser installations in the U.K. for identification of potential design weaknesses and for highlighting those parts of the system which have warranted critical safety consideration and focusing of resources. That a formal risk assessment approach has both enabled the cost-effective provision of safeguarding and supplied the rationale/justification for a well-argued safety case, should be persuasive to even the most ardent skeptic.

1.
Rockwell, R.
James
, Jr.
, “
Ensuring Safety in Laser Robotics
,”
Lasers& Applications
,
Nov
.
1984
.
2.
Ward
,
G. R.
and
Bandle
A. M.
, “Robot Mounted Lasers;”
The Safety Options, Proc 3rd Lasers in Manufacturing Conference [LIM-3]
, pp.
329
,
Spring
1986
.
3.
Green
,
J. M.
, “
High Power Laser Safety
,
Optics & Laser Technology
,” Vol
21
, No
4
,
1989
.
4.
Edwards
,
S. A.
and
Bandle
A. M.
, “
Risk Alanysis as Applied to High Average Power Industrial Laser Systems
,”
Proc 4th International Conference on Laser in Manufacturing
,
Birmingham UK
,
1987
.
5.
Folkes
J. A.
,
Tyrer
J.
&
Bandle
A. M.
, “
Nominal Hazard Distances for CO2 Lasers
,” to be
published in 1991 in Optics & Lasers in Engineering
.
6.
Taylor
A.F.D.S.
,
Edwards
S. A.
,
Barrett
J. A.
&
Bandle
A.M.
, “
Detection of Errant LaserBeams”, paper as presented at International Congress onOptical Science & Engineering
,
The Hague
,
12
16
March
1990
.
7.
Risk Assessment: A Study Group Report, Royal Society
, ISBN 085403 2088,
1983
.
8.
The Toler Ability of risk from Nuclear Power Stations
,
The Health and Safety Executive
,
HMSO
, ISBN 011883829,
1988
.
9.
Bandle
A.M.
&
Barrett
J. A.
,
The Status of Laser Standards in the UK
, also presented at this conference.
10.
Proposal by Committee 1 to International Electrotechnical Commission
,
Technical Committee
No
76
,
June
1990
.
11.
International Electrotechnical Committee IEC Standard
,
Publication 825: 1984, Radiation Safety of Laser Products, Equipment Classification, Requirements & Users Guide
.
12.
Machinery Safety Dirtective
, (Directive 89/392/EEC) OJ of the EC, No L183 of 29.6.89, pp.
9
32
.
13.
Physical agents Directive, Proposals to be made
in
1991
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.