Inspecting and testing wood poles

A qualified employee must inspect the wood pole and decide if it is safe to climb or work from. See Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926 which states the inspector must be qualified to determine whether work can proceed without additional precautions.

Yes — visible telltale signs include buckling at the ground line or the pole standing at an unusual angle relative to the ground. Appendix D lists these as indicators the pole may be rotted or broken and unsafe to climb: see Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Horizontal cracks perpendicular to the grain can weaken the pole and are a serious concern, while vertical cracks are not usually a sign of structural failure but can create a climbing hazard—climbers should keep gaffs away from them. This guidance is in Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Yes — hollow spots and woodpecker holes can reduce a pole’s strength and are indicators the pole may not be safe to climb. Appendix D specifically lists holes as a condition to check before climbing: see Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Shell rot or decay indicates internal deterioration and is a cutout hazard; its presence suggests the pole may be too weak to support employees or extra stress. Appendix D warns that rot and decay are signs a pole may not be safe to climb or work from: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Knots can create weak points—one large knot or multiple knots at the same height may mean the pole is weakened and unsafe to climb or work from. Appendix D lists knots as a condition to inspect for: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Evidence of a former ground line substantially above the current ground level suggests the pole may no longer be buried deeply enough to support loads. Appendix D identifies this as a concern for the pole’s ability to withstand stresses: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Soft, wet, or loose soil at the pole base may mean the pole cannot support changes in stress and could be unsafe to climb or work from. Appendix D lists soil conditions as a factor to check before climbing: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Yes — burn marks from transformer failures or conductor faults can damage the pole so it cannot withstand changes in mechanical stress and should be treated as a potential hazard. Appendix D includes burn marks as a condition to inspect: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

The hammer test is performed by sharply rapping the pole with a hammer of about 1.4 kg (3 pounds), starting near the ground line and moving circumferentially up to about 1.8 meters (6 feet); a clear ringing rebound indicates sound wood while a dull sound or reduced rebound indicates decay. This method is described in Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926 and accepted under 1910.268(n)(3).

You should prod the pole as near the ground line as possible using a pole prod or a screwdriver with a blade at least 127 millimeters (5 inches) long; substantial decay found by prodding makes the pole unsafe. Appendix D and 1910.268(n)(3) describe this probing technique: see Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

If the hammer produces a dull sound or a noticeably reduced rebound at any point, that indicates decay and the pole is unsafe to climb or work from. Appendix D explains how decay pockets sound during the hammer test and references the accepted testing method in 1910.268(n)(3): see Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

The rocking test applies a horizontal force to try to rock the pole back and forth perpendicular to the line; you must exercise caution to avoid causing power lines to swing together, and if the pole cracks during the test it is unsafe. Appendix D describes the rocking test and notes the safety precautions; the test method is also listed under 1910.268(n)(3): see Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

You can push the pole with a pike pole or pull it with a rope to apply horizontal force for the rocking test. Appendix D specifies those methods and warns about the potential hazard of swinging conductors: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

If a pole is unsafe, the employer must secure it so it does not fail while an employee is on it — for example by supporting it with a line truck boom, ropes or guys, or by lashing a new pole alongside the defective one and having employees work from the new pole. Appendix D lists these acceptable securing methods and that employees should work from the new lashed pole: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Employees should work from the new pole that was lashed alongside the defective pole rather than from the defective pole. Appendix D explicitly states that when a new pole is lashed alongside a defective one, employees should work from the new pole: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

Yes — Appendix D notes that a properly guyed pole in good condition should at a minimum be able to handle the weight of an employee climbing it. See Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926 for this guidance.

Appendix D describes the hammer and rocking tests as acceptable methods for testing poles and references the same tests in 1910.268(n)(3); employers may use these accepted methods but must ensure any chosen inspection/testing method reliably determines whether a pole is safe for the intended work. See Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926 and 1910.268(n)(3).

No — the person performing the inspection must be qualified to determine whether the pole is safe to perform the work without additional precautions. Appendix D states explicitly that the employee performing the inspection must be qualified to make that determination: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.

If the pole cracks during the rocking test, the pole is unsafe and must not be climbed or relied upon to support work. Appendix D plainly states that a pole that cracks during the rocking test is unsafe: Appendix D to Subpart V of Part 1926.