Lending air respirators for inspections
Thread Content
This post was last edited by siena2008 on 08:00, 2009-9-1. Recent special safety inspections of chlorine production and usage facilities have revealed that some small enterprises did not originally purchase air respirators; however, during our on-site inspections, they borrowed them from other companies. One of the chlorine-using units even borrowed its chlorine extinguishers; it is easy to imagine that in the event of a chlorine leak during production, the consequences would be severe. Friends, please share your views on the issue of \"lending\" If your company has air respirators, would you risk lending them to another company to meet inspection requirements? Local regulations: Article 6 of Lu An Jian Fa No. 134 stipulates: . . . . In small enterprises dealing with toxic and harmful gases, it is mandatory to equip them with air-supply respirators, alarms, showers and eyewash stations, chlorine scavengers, and other gas protection facilities and equipment, in order to improve the level of protection against such gases within these enterprises. . . . . .
Air respirators are safety devices designed to reduce and eliminate the impact of accidents. If our unit has air respirators and other units come to borrow them, out of courtesy we feel reluctant to refuse them, but if an accident occurs in their unit, we are likely to be unable to help, and it will be those people who suffer as a result.........
From the perspective of relevant regulatory requirements, it is only mandatory for enterprises to have such equipment on hand, with no rules prohibiting temporary lending. However, enterprises lack sufficient investment in safety measures, which leads to such situations of lending out the equipment. As mentioned earlier, when other units ask to borrow it, it’s awkward to refuse. The key issue is that the enterprise that lends out the equipment does not assume the corresponding risks
The situation described by the original poster is very representative. This is what was discussed earlier: many companies install safety facilities and improve their safety management practices not for the sake of safe production, but rather for the purpose of obtaining or renewing permits. This makes it very likely that fraud will occur in order to obtain the certificates. Not only are the safety facilities and other equipment at the production sites falsified, but there are also cases of fraud in safety management systems, operating procedures, emergency response plans, management records, and even in the opinions issued by certain **departments. Thus, once an accident does occur, the consequences are imaginable. But I believe that as laws and regulations improve and people’s awareness of safety increases, this phenomenon will become less and less common.
This practice is not recommended; borrowing something creates a sense of insecurity for the other party as well.
We have done this before – when other departments came to borrow something, our boss would simply say that it should be lent out. We didn’t really consider what potential risks this might pose to the other party; what we worried about was what would happen if we ran into problems of our own during the borrowing period and couldn’t meet our own needs. . . Once, a company came to borrow a pretty comprehensive set of equipment: air respirators, combustible gas detectors, emergency first-aid kits, and chemical protective suits. . . All of them. . . Leaders care about face; they satisfy everything~~~~~ Then they take away half of our combat equipment. . . Fortunately, it was returned the next day, and nothing went wrong during that time. . .
Safety equipment can be borrowed, but can life be borrowed? How much does a set of air respirators cost? One can no longer risk one’s life to make money! ! Wuxi SABRE! !