Letter to "union steward" 10/3/01

Mark Beightol was the Teamsters Union repreentative. Several years after Gary's killing, I met Mr. Beightol by chance when he was visiting a patient at a local hospital where I worked. He recognized me by my resemblance to Gary and recognized my name as the author of a few "letters to the editor" in our local paper. He explained there was a "union" and "non-union" part of Meadville Redi-Mix. Gary, a "new man' was in the "non union" part. Mr. Beightol did not indicate that an "informal conference" was ever held. Certainly we family members were never asked to be part of the process.
Mr. Beightol had left Redi-Mix and was working elsewhere when we met. He was present evidently at the OSHA "investigation" that occured a few months prior to Gary's killing. He said the OSHA inspector never went up the tower on that previous visit.
He speculated that the ladder Gary used to climb up the tower was "junk" and that it gave way.

CLICK TO ENLARGE.

Meadville Redi-Mix "abatement"

Meadville Red-Mix claimed and OSHA believed that Gary "took it upon" himself to wander up to the top of the hopper "on his own" without any safety equipment at the end of his driving shift to clean it. By claiming they did NOT assign him this task and not sending him up there without safety equipment, the only "wrongdoing" Meadville Redi-Mix was responsible for was not posting signs at a confined space.
If one is to believe Gary just "wandered up there" on his own, then Meadville Redi-Mix can correct their only error--not posting signs.
Meadville Redi-Mix sent these pictures to show they corrected the only thing they did wrong!!! Not posting signs.
Gary was found crushed and dead at the bottom of these.

Soltan 10/11/01

Stranahan 10/11/2001

10/11/01

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

Dear Mr. Stranahan:

I am writing to offer my comments and seek 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.

Allow me to summarize the events that lead to the issuance of this citation. Gary Puleio, a 53 year old father of two children aged 10 and 3, had only been employed as a truck driver by Redi-Mix for 3 months prior to his death. He died on 8/15/01 after falling 20 feet into a cement mixing tower. He was alone on the tower performing a job outside of the scope of his truck driving responsibilities, with no prior training nor any safety devices in place.

The Erie Times-News article concerning his death “Worker dies at Meadville concrete plant”, 8/16/01, stated that the “normal” procedure at Redi-Mix was for workers to be on the tower in twos not alone. One would assume that an individual’s experience, age and general health and fitness level would be taken into account when assigning risky tasks. My brother was 53 years old, had a history of knee problems for which he had recently been receiving physical therapy and prior to working for Redi-Mix, held straightforward truck driving jobs.

We, Gary’s family have many questions surrounding Gary’s death. On 8/30/01, I sent you, John Stranahan, a certified letter requesting all information on this case under the Freedom of Information Act. I had been contacted by the Erie office and told all information would, indeed, be sent to me.

On 10/3/01, a copy of the citation was sent to Linda Puleio, Gary’s widow. When I did not receive a copy of the citation by 10/10/01, I called the Erie office to see why the promise made to me had not been kept.

Although I had not yet received a copy of the citation, I was made aware of its contents by my grieving sister-in law and had the opportunity to discuss the findings with Jim Watson, the Compliance Officer who investigated the case.

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.

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 non permitted “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, he told Mr. Watson that Gary TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF to go the top of this tower alone, with out being told to do so by anyone. “On a whim”, I suppose.

Mr. Watson further informed me that Dennis Winkler, a concrete technician, saw Gary walk up the tower. If being on the tower alone is contrary to company policy and if Gary, indeed, would not have been assigned such a task, then why did Mr. Winkler not tell Gary to get down from there or report him to his supervisor for presumably acting irresponsibly on his own?

Thus I presume that this unbelievable statement of extremely unlikely veracity abrogates Redi-Mix of any culpability in not providing training, supervision or safety devices to Gary.

The only person who could refute what Mr. Fulmer claimed he told Gary on 8/15/01 is Gary himself but, of course, that is impossible because GARY IS DEAD. Linda, Gary’s widow, however, told me that Gary had come home from work on 8/14/01 and told her that he was assigned the task of “shoveling gravel off the hopper” that day and expressed worry about his safety. Gary’s family and friends know he had a lifelong fear of heights.

I therefore find it impossible to believe that Gary, a 53 year old man with knee problems and a fear of heights would choose to go up on top of that tower on his own.

Surely, this supervisor cannot be regarded as an objective witness. If he said he had directly assigned Gary the task of going to the top of the tower he would be exposing himself and Redi-Mix to the potential of receiving more serious violations and fines.

I find it unconscionable that the neglect that resulted in my brother’s death could be so easily dismissed. A fine of $6000 is pathetic and insulting when the life of a hard working cautious man like Gary was so callously thrown away.

Furthermore, the citations in Gary’s death were REPEAT ones. I would like to know the circumstances that lead to the previous citations. Perhaps other workers decided “on a whim” to climb to the top of this tower too.

Likewise, I would like to know if workers are EVER assigned to go to the top of the tower to clean it. What sort of training, experience, supervision and safety devices are provided to them? Were there any safety devices available so that Gary could have used them “on a whim” when he climbed that tower? When was the last time anyone was assigned to go to the top of the tower to clean it prior to Gary’s death?
Is there a record of who may have been “shoveling gravel off the hopper” on 8/14/01?

The citation also contains a “notice to employees of informal conference” . The date and time are left blank. Will our family be informed of the time so we can attend as “representatives of employees” (i.e. a representative of Gary)?

I am appalled at the egregious actions of Redi-Mix and how little my brother’s death means to OSHA. I find this truly shameful.

This tragic event and its aftermath have made me aware of how much needs to be done to protect worker’s lives. I plan to continue to seek answers in this case and share my findings and concerns with the community, elected representatives and those interested in workers safety.

Please add this letter to Gary’s file. I anxiously await your response to my questions and all other information such as subsequent settlement agreements and Review Commission decisions as outlined in OSHA Directive CPL 2.113- Fatality Inspection Procedures. Recall, you have already received my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

My family will suffer forever over the loss of Gary. His children will forever be without their father. A hard working decent man is gone forever.

May the actions of Redi-Mix and your response to them be forever on your conscience as you go forth with this case and others.


Sincerely,



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

CC: Richard D. Soltan, Regional Administrator, OSHA, The Curtis Center, 170 S. Independence Mall West, Suite 740 West, Phila, Pa 19106-3309

West Mead Township Police Report (Meadville, Crawford County, PA)

The police report 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?

Stranahan 10/28/2001

10/28/01

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

Dear Mr. Stranahan:

I am writing to obtain follow up to my letter of 10/11/01, requesting 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.

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 other 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.

As you know, 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

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