Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: ALAN T. SEELER, INC.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of ALAN T. SEELER, INC. in 87 RTE. 132 N, NEW HAMPTON, NH 03256 (NAICS 332710). OSHA activity number 330983438.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Alan T. Seeler, INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Alan T. Seeler, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
87 RTE. 132 N
City
NEW HAMPTON
State
NH
ZIP
03256
Mailing
PO BOX 778, NEW HAMPTON, NH 03256
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
332710
Employees
15
Ownership type
A

8 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.178 L01 I

Other-than-serious 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):    a.    Employees assigned to operate a Hyster Mod#E50B S/N#B1CBV5BZ Fork Lift were not provided with operator training in its use.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (O) $0
  • · C (S) $3000
  • · Z (S) $3000

1910.215 A01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,000 · Current $750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(a)(1):  Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not used with safety guard(s):    a.  The Stanley model# H256A S/N# 60-1 PL00683 bench grinder was not guarded.     b.  The Metal Max 8 model# 1 MM-GB6 bench grinder was not guarded.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (S) $750
  • · C (S) $3000
  • · Z (S) $3000

1910.215 A04

Serious Gravity 5 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4):  Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    a.   The Jet equipment and tools bench grinder model# JBG-BA did not have a work rests on the right side.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (S) $3000
  • · C (S) $3000
  • · Z (S) $3000

1910.215 B09

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):  Guard for abrasive wheel machine where the operator stood in front of the machine was not constructed so that the peripheral protecting member could be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel:    a.   The adjustable tongue guard was not provided on the Stanley model # H2256A S/N # 60-1PL00683 pedestal grinder.     b.   The adjustable tongue guard was not provided on the Metal Max 8 model # 1 MM-GB6 pedestal grinder.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (S) $0
  • · C (S) $3000
  • · Z (S) $3000

1910.212 A01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $22,000 · Current $3,000 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):  Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by rotating parts and ingoing nip points:    a.    The Ikegai TCR26 S/N 5367V CNC machine rotating chuck was not adequately guarded in that the machine interlock was tied back rendering it useless.      b.    The Ikegai TC26 CNC machine rotating chuck was not adequately guarded in that the machine interlock was tied back rendering it useless.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (S) $3000
  • · C (W) $22000
  • · Z (W) $22000

1904.1 A02

Other-than-serious 5 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $600 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1904.1(a)(2):  The company has more than ten (10) employees at any time during the last calendar year and did not keep OSHA injury and illness records.    a.  The employer failed to implement and maintained the OSHA 300 logs for the calendar year 2008.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (O) $0
  • · C (O) $600
  • · Z (O) $600

1904.1 A02

Other-than-serious 5 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $600 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1904.1(a)(2):  The company has more than ten (10) employees at any time during the last calendar year and did not keep OSHA injury and illness records.    a.  The employer failed to implement and maintained the OSHA 300 logs for the calerdar year 2009.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (O) $0
  • · C (O) $600
  • · Z (O) $600

1904.1 A02

Other-than-serious 5 exposed
Issued
Feb 10, 2012
Abate by
Feb 13, 2012
Penalty
Initial $600 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1904.1(a)(2):  The company has more than ten (10) employees at any time during the last calendar year and did not keep OSHA injury and illness records.    a.  The employer failed to implement and maintained the OSHA 300 logs for the calerdar year 2010.
Recent events (3)
  • · F (O) $0
  • · C (O) $600
  • · Z (O) $600

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 330983438.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.