DOCSLIB.ORG

JP 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, 30 June 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JP 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, 30 June 2011 Joint Publication 3-34 Joint Engineer Operations 06 January 2016 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides doctrine for the command and control, planning, and execution of joint engineer operations. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of objectives. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the joint staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance. Commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should follow multinational doctrine and procedures ratified by the United States. For doctrine and procedures not ratified by the US, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational command’s doctrine and procedures, where applicable and consistent with US law, regulations, and doctrine. For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: WILLIAM C. MAYVILLE, JR. LTG, USA Director, Joint Staff i Preface Intentionally Blank ii JP 3-34 SUMMARY OF CHANGES REVISION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 3-34 DATED 30 JUNE 2011 • Clarifies understanding of engineer support using the joint phase model by providing task relation by phase. • Clarifies the definition of general engineering. • Clarifies the definition of combat engineering. • Updates the capabilities and functions of the Service engineer forces. • Updates the capabilities and functions of engineer staff. • Updates typical funding and command and control relationships. • Updates the Service engineer capability matrix. • Adds definition of restricted area. • Rescinds definition of advanced base, F-hour, Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer (RED HORSE), and route classification. • Updates references and acronyms. iii Summary of Changes Intentionally Blank iv JP 3-34 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I JOINT ENGINEER FUNDAMENTALS Engineer Support in Joint Operations ........................................................................ I-1 Engineer Operations and the Principles of Joint Operations ..................................... I-1 Engineer Functions .................................................................................................... I-1 Engineer Support Across All Phases of Military Operations .................................... I-4 Military Engineering Capabilities .............................................................................. I-7 CHAPTER II ENGINEER FUNCTIONS Combat Engineering .................................................................................................II-1 General Engineering .................................................................................................II-4 Geospatial Engineering ...........................................................................................II-21 CHAPTER III COMMAND AND CONTROL Responsibilities ....................................................................................................... III-1 Authority and Control ............................................................................................. III-4 Command and Control Options .............................................................................. III-4 Command and Control Considerations ................................................................... III-7 Engineer Organization Considerations ................................................................. III-10 Engineer Boards, Centers, Cells, and Working Groups ....................................... III-14 Interorganizational Coordination .......................................................................... III-20 CHAPTER IV ENGINEER PLANNING Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Planning ........................................................ IV-1 Planning Process ..................................................................................................... IV-2 Development of Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data .................................. IV-9 General Planning Considerations ........................................................................... IV-9 Additional Planning Details .................................................................................. IV-15 Functional Planning Considerations ..................................................................... IV-18 Detailed Planning Considerations ......................................................................... IV-22 v Table of Contents APPENDIX A Service Engineer Organizations and Capabilities ..................................... A-1 B Defense Support of Civil Authorities .........................................................B-1 C Environmental Considerations ...................................................................C-1 D Contract Construction Agents ................................................................... D-1 E Construction Authorities and Funding ....................................................... E-1 F References .................................................................................................. F-1 G Administrative Instructions ....................................................................... G-1 GLOSSARY Part I Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................. GL-1 Part II Terms and Definitions ............................................................................. GL-7 FIGURE I-1 Engineer Functions and Activities .............................................................. I-1 I-2 Engineer Support to Joint Functions ........................................................... I-5 I-3 Engineer Support by Joint Phase ................................................................. I-6 II-1 Engineering Support to Defense Support of Civil Authorities ..................II-9 II-2 Engineering Support to Foreign Humanitarian Assistance Operations ...II-10 II-3 Engineering Support to Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore Operations ........II-18 II-4 Environmental Support Operations ..........................................................II-19 III-1 Service Component Command ................................................................. III-5 III-2 Functional Component Command ........................................................... III-6 III-3 Notional Engineer Staff .......................................................................... III-11 III-4 Engineer Staff Functions ........................................................................ III-12 III-5 Joint Civil-Military Engineering Board Inputs and Outputs .................. III-16 IV-1 Engineer Considerations During the Joint Operation Planning Process ............................................................. IV-3 IV-2 Operation Plan Annexes ........................................................................... IV-7 IV-3 Engineer Planning Considerations ......................................................... IV-10 IV-4 Geospatial Planning Information ........................................................... IV-11 IV-5 Engineer Reconnaissance and the Engineer Functions .......................... IV-13 IV-6 Infrastructure Assessment and Survey Model ........................................ IV-14 IV-7 Facility Requirements Factors ................................................................ IV-26 IV-8 Force Beddown/Base Development and Facility Construction Levels .................................................................. IV-28 IV-9 Contingency Construction Standards in Theater .................................... IV-29 IV-10 Host Nation Areas of Support ................................................................ IV-37 A-A-1 Core Engineer Units .............................................................................. A-A-4 A-A-2 Specialized Army Engineer Force Pool Capabilities ............................ A-A-6 A-D-1 Marine Air-Ground Task Force Engineer Formations .......................... A-D-1 A-E-1 Matrix of Service
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formation of the Corps of Engineers
    Formation of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Father of the Corps of Engineers At age 16 he was engaged by Lord Fairfax as a surveyor’s helper to survey 1.5 million acres of the Northern Neck of Virginia, which extended into the Shenandoah Valley At 17 he began surveying lots in Alexandria for pay, and became surveyor of Culpepper County later that summer. At age 21 he was given a major’s commission and made Adjutant of Southern Virginia. Six months later he led the first of three English expeditions into the Ohio Valley to initially parlay, then fight the French. Few individuals had a better appreciation of the Allegheny Mountains and the general character of all the lands comprising the American Colonies First Engineer Action Battle of Bunker Hill in Boston in 1775 Washington’s First Chief Engineer In 1775 Putnam entered the Continental Army as a lieutenant colonel. He was involved in the organization of the batteries and fortifications in Boston and New York City in 1776 and 1777, serving as Washington’s first chief Engineer. He went on to greater successes commanding a regiment under General Horatio Gates at the Battle of Saratoga in September 1777. He built new fortifications at West Point in 1778 and in 1779 he served under General Anthony Wayne. He was promoted to brigadier general four years later. Rufus Putnam 1738-1824 Chief Engineer 1777 - 1783 Washington pleaded for more engineers, which began arriving from France in 1776. In late 1777 Congress promoted Louis Duportail to brigadier general and Chief Engineer, a position he held for the duration of the war.
    [Show full text]
  • DAO Level 3 Certificate in Military Engineering (Armoured) Titan and Trojan Crew Supervision
    Qualification Handbook DAO Level 3 Certificate in Military Engineering (Armoured) Titan and Trojan crew supervision QN: 603/3232/3 The Qualification Overall Objective for the Qualifications This handbook relates to the following qualification: DAO Level 3 Certificate in Military Engineering (Armoured) Titan and Trojan crew supervision Pre-entry Requirements Learners are required to have completed the Class ME (Armd) Class 0-2 course, must be fully qualified AFV crewman and hold full category H driving licence Unit Content and Rules of Combination This qualification is made up of a total of 6 mandatory units and no optional units. To be awarded this qualification the candidate must achieve a total of 13 credits as shown in the table below. Unit Unit of assessment Level GLH TQT Credit number value L/617/0309 Supervise Titan Operation and 3 25 30 3 associated Equipment L/617/0312 Supervise Titan Crew 3 16 19 2 R/617/0313 Supervise Trojan Operation and 3 26 30 3 associated Equipment D/617/0315 Supervise Trojan Crew 3 16 19 2 H/617/0316 Supervise Trojan and Titan AFV 3 10 19 2 maintenance tasks K/617/0317 Carry out emergency procedures and 3 7 11 1 communication for Trojan and Titan AFV Totals 100 128 13 Age Restriction This qualification is available to learners aged 18 years and over. Opportunities for Progression This qualification creates a number of opportunities for progression through career development and promotion. Exemption No exemptions have been identified. 2 Credit Transfer Credits from identical RQF units that have already been achieved by the learner may be transferred.
    [Show full text]
  • 18News from the Royal School of Military
    RSME MATTERSNEWS FROM THE ROYAL SCHOOL OF MILITARY ENGINEERING GROUP 18 NOVEMBER 2018 Contents 4 5 11 DEMS BOMB DISPOSAL TRAINING UPDATE Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), It’s the ten-year anniversary of the signing of the Munitions and Search Training Regiment (DEMS RSME Public Private Partnership (PPP) Contract Trg Regt) operates across two sites. The first is and that decade has seen an impressive amount the more established... Read more on page 5 of change. A casual.. Read more on page 11 WELCOME Welcome to issue 18 of RSME Matters. Much has 15 changed across the RSME Group since issue 17 but the overall challenge, of delivering appropriately trained soldiers FEATURE: INNOVATION and military working animals... The Royal School of Military Engineering (RSME) Private Public Partnership (PPP) between the Secretary of State for Defence and... Read more on page 4 Read more on page 15 We’re always looking for new parts of the RSME to explore and share Front cover: Bomb disposal training in action at DEMS Trg Regt – see story on page 9. within RSME Matters. If you’d like us to tell your story then just let us know. Back cover: Royal Engineers approach the Rochester Bridge over the river Medway during a recent night exercise. Nicki Lockhart, Editor, [email protected] Photography: All images except where stated by Ian Clowes | goldy.uk Ian Clowes, Writer and Photographer, 07930 982 661 | [email protected] Design and production: Plain Design | plaindesign.co.uk Printed on FSC® (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper, which supports the growth of responsible forest management worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Permits-To-Work in the Process Industries
    SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 151 # 2006 IChemE PERMITS-TO-WORK IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES John Gould Environmental Resources Management, Suite 8.01, 8 Exchange Quay, Manchester M5 3EJ; [email protected] The paper presents the collective results from a number of Safety Management System audits. The audit protocol is based on the Health and Safety Executive pub- lication ‘Successful health and safety management’ and takes into account formal (written) and informal procedures as well as their implementation. Focused on permit-to-work systems, these have shown a number of common failings. The most common failure in implementing a permit-to-work system is the issue of too many permits. However, the audit protocol considers the whole risk control system. The failure to ‘close’ the management loop with an effective regular review process is the largest obstacle to an effective permit system. INTRODUCTION ‘Permits save lives – give them proper attention’. This is a startling statement made by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in its free leaflet IND(G) 98 (Rev 3) PTW systems. The leaflet goes on to state that two thirds of all accidents in the chemical industry are main- tenance related, with the permit-to-work (PTW) failures being the largest single cause. Given these facts, it comes as no surprise that PTW systems are a key part in the provision of a safe working environment. Over the past four years Environmental Resources Management (ERM) has been auditing PTW systems as part of its key risk control systems audits. Numerous systems have been evaluated from a wide rage of industries, covering personal care products man- ufacturing to refinery operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatism and Cooperation: Canadian-American Defence Activities in the Arctic, 1945-1951
    Pragmatism and Cooperation: Canadian-American Defence Activities in the Arctic, 1945-1951 by Peter Kikkert A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts In History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2009 © Peter Kikkert 2009 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract During the early Cold War, as the Soviet menace placed Canada in between two hostile superpowers, the Canadian government decided to take steps to ensure that its sovereignty and national interests were not threatened by the Americans in the new strategic environment. This study examines the extent to which the Canadian government actually defended its sovereignty and rights against American intrusions in the early Cold War. At its core is an examination of the government’s policy of gradual acquisition in the Arctic between 1945 and 1951. This thesis explores the relationships that existed at the time, the essence of the negotiations, the state of international law and the potential costs and benefits of certain Canadian courses of action. It also explains how Canada’s quiet diplomacy allowed it to avoid alienating its chief ally, contribute to continental defence, and strengthen its sovereignty during this period. iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer, for his insight, constant encouragement and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • X] N00178-14-D-7979-Fk01 10B
    1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 2 2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) 12 01-Apr-2019 N0006019RC017RT N/A 6. ISSUED BY CODE N00189 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE S2404A NAVSUP FLC Norfolk, Code 200 DCMA Manassas SCD: C 1968 Gilbert Street Ste 600 14501 George Carter Way, 2nd Floor Norfolk VA 23511-3392 Chantilly VA 20151 [email protected] 757-277-6441 8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO. T-Solutions, Inc. 860 Greenbrier Cir, Ste 405 Chesapeake VA 23320 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO. [X] N00178-14-D-7979-FK01 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13) CAGE FACILITY CODE 3EZR6 12-Mar-2015 CODE 11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS [ ]The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [ ] is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning one (1) copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Roles in Stabilization
    C O R P O R A T I O N Finding the Right Balance Department of Defense Roles in Stabilization Linda Robinson, Sean Mann, Jeffrey Martini, Stephanie Pezard For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0046-8 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report comes at an important juncture for U.S. policymaking. The report evaluates the nature and appropriateness of tasks the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Formality for Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities and Activities
    DNFSDrrECII-l~ OPERATIONAL FORMALITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Technical Report March 1997 OPERATIONAL FORMALITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES This technical report was prepared for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board by the following staff members: Steve Krahn Matthew Moury with assistance from: Wayne Andrews Dan Burnfield Don Owen and outside expert John Drain FOREWORD The Board has emphasized that when performing work involving hazardous materials, it is important to plan the work carefully, and to develop the controls and implementing procedures necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the work will be conducted safely. While the exact nature ofthese practices will valY depending on the work being performed, certain operational practices have evolved that have been effective. These operational practices are treated in this report as a composite forming what is termed "formality ofoperations." John T. Conway Chairman III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commercial manufacturing organizations ofall sizes have developed policies and practices, termed "formality ofoperations," to be followed by employees to ensure safety in the workplace, establish norms ofperformance, and promote work practices fostering efficiency and uniform product quality. For small companies, these "good engineering (or shop) practices" are often passed on by example and by word ofmouth from journeyman to apprentice. Larger organizations usually codify these concepts in policies, requirements, and procedural documents to achieve desired practices on the shop floor, and such practices become an integral part ofnew employee training. When these policies and procedures are reinforced by all managers, fi'om upper-level management to first-line supervisors, formality ofoperations becomes second nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Fm 3-34.400 (Fm 5-104)
    FM 3-34.400 (FM 5-104) GENERAL ENGINEERING December 2008 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online (www.us.army.mil) and General Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library at (www.train.army.mil). *FM 3-34.400 (FM 5-104) Field Manual Headquarters No. 3-34.400 (5-104) Department of the Army Washington, DC, 9 December 2008 General Engineering Contents Page PREFACE ............................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... ix PART ONE GENERAL ENGINEERING IN THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Chapter 1 GENERAL ENGINEERING AS AN ENGINEER FUNCTION ............................ 1-1 Full Spectrum General Engineering ................................................................... 1-1 Employment Considerations For General Engineering ...................................... 1-6 Assured Mobility Integration ............................................................................... 1-8 Full Spectrum Operations ................................................................................... 1-9 Homeland Security Implications For General Engineering .............................. 1-12 Chapter 2 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................... 2-1 Operational Environment ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defence Against Terrorism
    Centre of Excellence - Defence Against Terrorism Osman AYTAÇ Col TUR ARMY Chief Education & Training Department [email protected] NATO SPS INFORMATION DAY 4 February 2010 İstanbul / TURKEY UNCLASSIFIED 1/25 Agenda * Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism * COEDAT Activities Supported by SPS Programme UNCLASSIFIED 2/25 Prague Summit * Transformation of NATO should continue, * Capabilities against the contemporary threats must be addressed: − Defence against terrorism, − Strengthen capabilities to defend against cyber attacks, − Augment and improve CBRN defence capabilities, − Examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat . UNCLASSIFIED 3/25 Centres of Excellence New NATO command arrangements should be supported by a network of Centres of Excellence (COEs) UNCLASSIFIED 4/25 Milestones Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism Declaration of Intention : 01 December 2003 Inauguration of the Centre : 28 June 2005 New Allies Join the Centre : Fall 2005-Fall 2006 NATO Accreditation : 14 August 2006 UNCLASSIFIED 5/25 Centre of Excellence (COE) COE is a nationally or multinationally sponsored entity which offers recognized expertise & experience to the benefit of the alliance especially in support of transformation process*. * Reference: MCM-236-03 MC Concept for Centers of Excellence, 04 December ‘03 UNCLASSIFIED 6/25 Centres of Excellence in NATO * Joint Air Power Competence (DEU) * Defence Against Terrorism (TUR) * Naval Mine Warfare (BEL) * Combined Joint Ops. from the Sea (USA) * Cold Weather Ops. (NOR)
    [Show full text]
  • Military Engineering 5-6 Syllabus
    Fairfax Collegiate 703 481-3080 · www.FairfaxCollegiate.com Military Engineering 5-6 Syllabus Course Goals 1 Physics Concepts and Applications Students learn the basics of physics, including Newton’s laws and projectile motion. They will apply this knowledge through the construction of miniature catapult structures and subsequent analysis of their functions. 2 History of Engineering Design Students learn about the progression of military and ballistics technology starting in the ancient era up until the end of the Middle Ages. Students will identify the context that these engineering breakthroughs arose from, and recognize the evolution of this technology as part of the engineering design process. 3 Design, Fabrication, and Testing Students work in small teams to build and test their projects, including identifying issues and troubleshooting as they arise. Students will demonstrate their understanding of this process through the design, prototyping, testing, and execution of an original catapult design. Course Topics 1 Ancient Era Siege Weapons 1.1 Brief History of Siege Warfare 1.2 Basic Physics 2 The Birth of Siege Warfare 2.1 Ancient Greece 2.2 Projectile Motion 3 Viking Siege! 3.1 History of the Vikings 3.2 Building with Triangles 4 Alexander the Great and Torsion Catapults Fairfax Collegiate · Have Fun and Learn! · For Rising Grades 3 to 12 4.1 The Conquests of Alexander the Great 4.2 The Torsion Spring and Lithobolos 5 The Romans 6 Julius Caesar 7 The Crusades 8 The Middle Ages 9 Castle Siege Course Schedule Day 1 Introduction and Ice Breaker Students learn about the course, their instructor, and each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of State Human Resources
    OFFICE OF STATE HUMAN RESOURCES NUMBER: LOTO-1 TOTAL PAGES: 19 SUBJECT: Lockout/Tagout Program Effective Date: Revision Date: Revision #: RELATED LEGISLATION: North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry, 29 CFR 1910.147. I. Purpose Each employee shall be informed that the purpose of the lockout/tagout procedure is to provide a system for the lockout and/or tagout of energy isolating devices and thereby protect employees from potentially hazardous energy. Wherever possible, energy-isolating devices should be locked out. Before employee’s service, repair or perform maintenance, the machine or equipment must be isolated from all potentially hazardous energy, and the isolating energy device(s) for the machine or equipment must be locked out or tagged out. II. Types and Magnitude of Energy and Hazards Each employee must be instructed in the types and magnitude of energy used by the company. The following types of energy are used: (a) (b) (c) (d) The magnitude of energy (a) ( energy) used is: ; the magnitude of hazards presented by the _____________ energy is: . The magnitude of energy (b) ( energy) used is: ; the magnitude of hazards presented by the _____________ energy is: . The magnitude of energy (c) ( energy) used is: ; the magnitude of hazards presented by the _____________ energy is: . The magnitude of energy (d) ( energy) used is: ; the magnitude of hazards presented by the _____________ energy is: . 1 III. Training and Retraining of Affected and Authorized Employees Each employee must be thoroughly trained with respect to lockout/tagout procedure used by the company. Each employee must know that lockout/ tagout is used to protect employees against hazardous energy from inadvertent operation of equipment or machinery.
    [Show full text]