Henshaw 11/5/2001

11/5/01

John Henshaw
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Health and Safety
USDOL
200 Constitution Ave
Washington, DC 20210




Dear Mr. Henshaw:

I am writing to obtain further information about the citation issued on 9/28/01 to Meadville Redi-Mix Concrete, Inc (Inspection Number 303706683) in the death of my brother, Gary Puleio and to express my concerns about the investigation that was done.

At the suggestion given to me by Mr. Jim Watson, the Compliance Officer who investigated this case, Gary’s widow, Linda Puleio, obtained a copy of the complaint report (#01-1040) filed by Officer Brown of the West Mead Township Police Department. Linda spoke with Officer Brown on 10/24/01, related the conversation to me and gave me a copy of the police report as well as copies of the signed statements of the first 3 persons on the scene (Mr. Winkler, Mr. Cady and Mr. Starcher). I am enclosing these reports and statements for your review.

The complaint report raises several questions about the circumstances surrounding my brother’s death for which I implore you for answers. I find the comment by Officer Brown in paragraph 2, sequence 03, page 1 Incident Supplemental Report noting “ After speaking with Mr. Watson and there being some DISCREPANCIES between what Keberts had told him and what I was told…” particularly distressing and want clarification as to what the DISCREPANCIES were and how they were reconciled.

Redi- Mix was cited for a REPEAT violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and danger posed by a Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS).

Redi-Mix was also cited for a REPEAT violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(1): Under the Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS) program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not implement the measures necessary to prevent unauthorized entry.

On 10/10/01, I asked Mr. Watson why there was no mention of the absence of safety devices, the lack of training and experience of my brother, and the condition of the area surrounding this “confined space”.

Mr. Watson stated that he was told by Gary’s supervisor, Jim Fulmer, that Gary had been assigned the task of cleaning a conveyor belt. Evidently, Mr. Fulmer told Mr. Watson that Gary TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF to go to the top of this tower alone, without being told to do so by anyone. “On a whim” I suppose.

I note that Mr. Fulmer was NOT one of the individual who made statements upon which Officer Brown’s report is based.

I presume that this implausible premise, that my brother chose to go to the top of this tower on his own, abrogates Redi-Mix from any culpability in not providing training, supervision or safety devices to Gary.

Linda told me Gary came home from work on 8/14/01 and told her he was assigned the task of “shoveling gravel off the hopper” that day and expressed worry about his safety. All of us who knew Gary, know he was an extremely cautious man with a fear of heights.

Therefore it seems unbelievable that a 53 year old man with knee problems and a fear of heights would go up to the top of the tower on his own.

The police report supports this statement as well as raises more disturbing questions for which I seek answers.

1. Cady’s statement that “both Cady and victim have been up there numerous times” and the Winkler statement “victim is mixer driver and duties include going up onto batch plant and cleaning up debris so turntable can move” suggest that Gary was, indeed, assigned that task and did not just go up there on his own.

2. Paragraph 6, Sequence 02, Page 2, Incident Supplemental Report states “The victim also did not have any safety equipment on nor were there any indications that the victim had been wearing any safety equipment at the time of the accident(Note: THERE WAS NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING) “ Do you not think that this total lack of safety equipment would merit mentioning even if you chose to believe the implausible statement by an individual WHO DID NOT EVEN GIVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE that Gary wandered up there on his own?

3. Cady’s statement that he “ pulled his mixer in to be loaded” suggests that the turntable (mentioned in item #1 above) may have been turned on and began moving so as to fill the mixer truck below while Gary was on the turntable cleaning it ( a duty Winkler in item #1 above stated was Gary’s) Cady’s statement that “Jim (presumably Fulmer?) went back to the office to shut off the power” further suggests this. It seems indeed possible the Gary was thrust into the hole by the movement of the turntable. Is there any indication that there are any safety features on that turntable that prevent it from being turned on when someone is up there removing debris from it?

4. Paragraph 9, Sequence 2, Page 1 Incident Supplemental Report states “ There was a definite mark on the steel wall inside the bin where the victim had impacted the wall . The mark was approx. 3 feet directly above where the victim came to rest in the bin” This suggests that rather than Gary just falling into the bin that he may have been thrust into it by the moving turntable and was slammed into its wall with significant momentum prior to hitting the ground. Perhaps this could explain the “ large gash on the right side of his forehead” described in Paragraph 5, sequence 2, page 2, Incident Supplemental Report. Again, is there any way of determining the process for preventing that turntable from moving when someone is up there removing debris from around it?

5. Winkler’s statement that he “felt pulse but victim was not breathing” suggests that it was realized rather quickly what had occurred (perhaps Gary being thrust in hole by turntable?) and that he got to Gary very soon after he hit the bottom of the bin. If story related by Fulmer to Watson and reported in Erie-Times-News “Worker dies at Meadville concrete plant” 8/16/01 , that Gary wandered up there on his own and was only discovered to be missing when he was needed for another task, I would presume he would have been dead for a while when discovered. He would be with out both respirations and pulse.

6. Paragraph4, sequence1, Page1 Incident Supplement Report states “Three other employees from Keberts also were there atop the bins, John Shartle, supervisor (is this Fulmer who did not give statement?)and two drivers(later id’ed as Cady and Stratcher). Shartle was asked to go down from the scene with the two other Kebert employees and keep them separated until I could speak to them” Officer Brown told Linda when he got to the men they had NOT been separated but were together in the office. Who was the supervisor? Why didn’t he give a statement to the police? Was this Fulmer who told Watson that Gary went up there on his own?

7. Paragraph 2, Sequence 3, page 1 Incident Supplement Report states “Aug 23, 2001, After speaking to Mr. Watson and there being some DISCREPANCIES between what Keberts had told him and what I was told during my investigation Mr. Watson requested a copy of my police report” THIS IS A MOST CONCERNING STATEMENT. What were the discrepancies? How were they reconciled? Will this ever be reported?

Reading the police report has raised many questions and concerns. It has been very difficult for me to read about how my brother was killed. The description of his injuries was particularly painful. My conscience dictates that I set aside my pain and ask these questions. I pray your conscience will dictate that you answer them.

Please add this and the police report to Gary’s file and make it a permanent part of his record.



Sincerely,



Donna Puleio Spadaro, MD
R. D. 2 Box 18
309 Warren Rd.
Franklin, Pa 16323
Work 814-437-7891
Home 814-432-5450

Enclosure: Complaint Report 01-1040 West Mead Township Police Department

CC: Richard D. Soltan, Regional Administrator, OSHA, The Curtis Center, 170 S. Independence Mall West, Phila, Pa. 19106-3309

CC: John H. Stranahan, USDOL-OSHA, Suite B12, 3939 West Ridge Road, Erie, Pa 16506