UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE — a local messengers and local delivery facility located at 3003 S. WEST ST., WICHITA, KS 67217 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 18 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $49,015.00. The inspection case was opened on 2010-02-09.

The volume of citations issued during this inspection suggests systematic compliance deficiencies rather than isolated incidents. Facilities with 10 or more citations typically face comprehensive abatement requirements and may be subject to follow-up inspections.

BLS Injury Data: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022), this industry sector has an occupational injury rate of 4.6 per 100 full-time workers — 70% above the national average of 2.7. The sector fatality rate is 14.0 per 100,000 workers.

EPA Environmental Record: The EPA shows no current violations for this facility. regulated under: RCRA Hazardous Waste. Source: EPA ECHO database.

Industry Benchmark: The total penalty of $49,015.00 is more than 8.8× the national average of $5,543.54 for facilities in the Transportation sector (NAICS 492210). This sector encompasses 12,040 inspected facilities nationwide with aggregate penalties totaling $66.7M.

State Context: Within KS, this facility's penalty places it at the 99th percentile among 19,826 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $3,225.89.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 18 citations spanning 9 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 6 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition. 7 other-than-serious — The violation has a direct relationship to job safety and health but is unlikely to cause death or serious physical harm. 2 repeat — A substantially similar violation was found during a previous inspection and the original citation has become a final order.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning October 24, 1989 with the latest abatement deadline set for January 31, 2011. Of the 18 total citations, 14 (78%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, suggesting partial progress toward required corrective actions.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $49,015.00 reflects OSHA's gravity-based penalty calculation methodology, which considers the severity of potential injury, the probability of occurrence, the employer's size, good faith, and violation history. The per-citation average of $2,723.06 falls within the standard penalty range.

The 2010 inspection of this United Parcel Service facility revealed a deeply entrenched pattern of non-compliance, characterized by a failure to maintain fundamental safety controls across multiple operational vectors. The assessment of eighteen citations, culminating in nearly $50,000 in penalties, indicates a systemic breakdown in safety management rather than isolated lapses. Of particular concern was the recurrence of violations under 1910.132(a) and 1910.20(g)(1), which signals a failure of the facility’s internal auditing processes. The presence of Repeat (R) violations suggests that management was previously alerted to specific hazards—specifically regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and employee access to medical records—yet failed to sustain corrective actions. The gravity-ten Serious (S) violations related to floor openings (1910.23) and general PPE requirements represent the highest level of administrative severity, reflecting a significant probability of death or serious physical harm from falls or struck-by incidents. In the context of a high-volume logistics environment, the combination of machine guarding failures (1910.212) and walking-working surface hazards indicates that employees were routinely exposed to preventable mechanical and structural risks. The penalty total is notably high for the courier and express delivery industry, suggesting that OSHA inspectors found the facility’s safety culture to be reactive rather than proactive. This enforcement profile paints a picture of a facility where production speed likely outpaced safety oversight, necessitating a comprehensive overhaul of its hazard assessment and training protocols to mitigate future liability and worker injury.