Inspecting and testing wood poles

A qualified employee must inspect the wood pole and determine whether it is safe to climb or work from. Employers must ensure the person doing the inspection is competent to judge whether additional precautions are needed before work begins, as explained in Appendix D to 1910.269 and the rule at 1910.269.

• The inspection is intended to determine that the pole can sustain the weight of the employee, tools, and any additional stresses that the work may add.
• If the inspector finds the pole unsafe, the employer must secure the pole so it will not fail while an employee is on it (see the securing methods in Appendix D).

Look for obvious signs the pole may be weakened, including buckling at the ground line or the pole leaning at an unusual angle; these can indicate rot or breakage. Appendix D lists general condition checks that signal a pole may not support added stresses: see Appendix D to 1910.269 and the main rule at 1910.269.

• Buckling or unusual tilt at the ground line are red flags.
• These general-condition observations are part of deciding whether the pole is safe to climb.

Horizontal cracks perpendicular to the wood grain may weaken the pole and are a concern; vertical cracks are not normally a sign the pole is defective but can pose a hazard to the climber and should be avoided by gaffs. This guidance appears in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Horizontal cracks: consider these potential structural defects.
• Vertical cracks: treat as a climbing hazard—keep gaffs away while ascending.
• The presence of cracks is an indication the pole may not be safe to climb or work from.

Holes and hollow spots can reduce the strength of a wood pole and are an indication the pole may not be safe to climb or work from, according to Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Even small holes can create localized weakness that affects pole integrity.
• Finding such holes should factor into the inspector’s determination of whether additional precautions or securing measures are needed.

Shell rot and decay are signs the pole has lost structural material and are cutout hazards; they indicate the age and internal condition of the pole and may make it unsafe to climb. This is described in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Decay can be internal and not visible from outside, so inspectors use tests (e.g., hammer and prod) to check for it.
• If substantial decay is present, the pole is considered unsafe.

Knots concentrated at the same height—one large knot or several smaller ones—may indicate a weak point in the pole and should be noted during inspection. See Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Knots can reduce the wood’s strength locally and increase the chance of failure under added stress.
• Inspectors should consider knots when deciding whether a pole is safe to climb or requires securing.

Evidence of a former ground line substantially above the current ground level can indicate the pole is no longer buried deep enough to be stable, and that condition should be treated as a potential safety issue. This guidance is in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• A reduced buried depth may reduce the pole’s capacity to resist loads and changes in stress.
• Combine this observation with other inspection findings when judging pole safety.

Soft, wet, or loose soil around the base of a pole may indicate the pole will not support changes in stress and should be considered a hazard when inspecting the pole, as described in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Unstable soil can allow movement or settling under load and make the pole unsafe for climbing or for supporting additional equipment.
• Inspectors should include soil condition in their overall safety determination.

Burn marks can mean the pole has been damaged and may not be able to withstand changes in mechanical stress, so burn-damaged poles should be inspected carefully and treated as potentially unsafe, per Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Electrical burning can char or weaken the wood, sometimes internally, reducing strength.
• Treat burn-marked poles with caution and consider securing measures before allowing employees to climb.

Perform a hammer test by rapping the pole sharply with a hammer weighing about 1.4 kg (3 pounds), starting near the ground line and continuing upward around the pole to about 1.8 meters (6 feet); sound wood gives a clear, sharp rebound, while decay pockets produce a dull sound or less rebound. This method is described in Appendix D to 1910.269 and listed as an acceptable test in 1910.268(n)(3).

• After hammering, also prod near the ground line with a pole prod or a screwdriver blade at least 127 mm (5 inches) long; dull sound or evidence of hollow areas means the pole may be unsafe.
• If substantial decay is present according to these cues, the pole is unsafe to climb.

The rocking test involves applying a horizontal force to the pole and trying to rock it back and forth perpendicular to the line, either by pushing with a pike pole or pulling with a rope; do this cautiously to avoid causing power lines to swing together. The test is described in Appendix D to 1910.269 and accepted in 1910.268(n)(3).

• If the pole cracks during the rocking test, it is unsafe.
• Do not create hazards by making conductors or lines swing into each other when performing the test.

If the pole is unsafe to climb or work from, the employer must secure the pole so it will not fail while an employee is on it; acceptable securing methods include using a line truck boom, ropes or guys, or lashing a new pole alongside it, as described in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• When a new pole is lashed alongside a defective one, employees should work from the new pole rather than the defective pole.
• Securing the pole is required before allowing employees to climb when the pole is found unsafe.

If a new pole is lashed alongside a defective pole, employees should work from the new pole, and the lashing is used to secure the defective pole so it will not fail while work is done. This practice is described in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Lashing a new pole provides a safe working platform; the guideline specifically says employees should work from the new one.
• Employers must still ensure the lashing and the new pole installation provide adequate support before permitting climbs.

Yes; a properly guyed pole in good condition should, at a minimum, be able to handle the weight of an employee climbing it, as noted in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• This is a baseline expectation—inspectors still need to check for other defects (decay, cracks, holes, soil instability) that could compromise the pole despite proper guying.

No—vertical cracks, while not normally a sign of structural defect, can pose a hazard to the climber and the employee should keep gaffs away from them while climbing, according to Appendix D to 1910.269.

• Treat vertical cracks as a climbing hazard even if they do not by themselves indicate the pole will fail.
• Combine this with other inspection findings to judge overall safety.

Substantial decay is indicated by a dull sound or a noticeably reduced hammer rebound during the hammer test, or by soft or compromised material when prodded near the ground line; if substantial decay is present the pole is unsafe, per Appendix D to 1910.269 and 1910.268(n)(3).

• If these signs appear, do not allow employees to climb the pole until it has been secured or replaced.
• Use both hammer sound and prod results together to decide on pole safety.

The employee performing the inspection, who must be qualified, is responsible for making the determination whether it is safe to perform the work without taking additional precautions; this requirement is stated in Appendix D to 1910.269.

• The qualified inspector must use the inspection and testing methods described in Appendix D to reach the decision.
• If the inspector is unsure or finds unsafe conditions, the pole must be secured or replaced before employees climb.

Start the hammer test near the ground line and continue upward circumferentially around the pole to a height of approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet); this procedure is described in Appendix D to 1910.269 and accepted in 1910.268(n)(3).

• Test the entire circumference in that zone to find localized decay pockets.
• Follow up with prodding near the ground line to check for hidden decay.

Use a pole prod or a screwdriver with a blade at least 127 millimeters (5 inches) long to prod the pole as near the ground line as possible; this is recommended in Appendix D to 1910.269 and reflected in 1910.268(n)(3).

• The intent is to penetrate or detect soft wood at the ground line where decay often begins.
• If the prod reveals soft or hollow areas, the pole should be treated as unsafe.