Background
The U.S. Postal Service selected the Topeka Sorting and Delivery Center (S&DC) as one of the first facilities for fleet electrification. To support its planned electric vehicle (EV) roll out, the Postal Service contracted for the design and installation of 95 parking spaces with charging ports. To conduct the commissioning, they hired external contractors to perform electrical, network, charging, and safety testing. Carriers began using 25 EVs for delivery on June 6, 2024.
What We Did
Our objective was to assess whether the Topeka S&DC was prepared to utilize EVs in delivery operations. We conducted observations at the Topeka S&DC and worked with contractors to perform electrical testing and evaluate the operating and safety features of the infrastructure.
What We Found
We found the Postal Service took appropriate steps to ensure the Topeka S&DC was prepared to utilize EVs. However, we identified opportunities to enhance infrastructure security, safety, and communication between headquarters and local management. Specifically, we found the delivery vehicle parking lot was unsecured and electrical panels were unlocked with keys inside their boxes; one panel had several holes patched with tape; and the facility lacked readable signage. Moreover, we found 12 of 35 (34 percent) sampled stalls were less than the required dimensions; and bollard spacing did not provide adequate protection for electrical equipment from vehicular traffic. Lastly, local management did not receive written communication about the protocols for operation and maintenance of EVs. Unsecured equipment may be subject to vandalism, theft, and financial loss. Additionally, increasing focus on infrastructure safety can prevent unsafe work environments. Furthermore, inadequate communication could interfere with delivery operations and potentially result in delayed mail.
Recommendations and Management’s Comments
We made seven recommendations to address the issues identified in the report. Postal Service management agreed with six recommendations and disagreed with one. We consider management’s comments responsive to recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 as corrective actions should resolve the issues in the report. Management disagreed with recommendation 5, and we will work with them through the formal audit resolution process. Management’s comments and our evaluation are at the end of each finding and recommendation.
