Clean Up Act, L.A. Zoo Told : Animals: U.S. cites longstanding food and sanitation problems. The facility could face fines or revocation of its license.

Frustrated by repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act, federal officials have formally warned the Los Angeles Zoo to correct longstanding problems at the Griffith Park facility or face legal action that could bring stiff fines or license revocation.

Problems found by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors over the last three years include inappropriate food storage that could lead to contamination, sanitation deficiencies that could promote disease, pest and rodent contamination, inadequate housing and run-down animal barns.

Last September, for example, an inspector noted that a refrigerator used to store food for polar bears had standing pools of polluted liquid that appeared to be blood.

A medicine shelf contained bloody cardboard and paper towels, and a used hypodermic syringe was lying in the food preparation area for the polar bears. Fecal coloform levels were checked only sporadically in the bears’ swimming moat.

Zoo officials said they have corrected many of the problems in recent weeks and have plans to address the others. Agriculture Department officials acknowledge that there has been significant improvement.

Over the last three years, records show, the zoo repeatedly missed correction deadlines set by the Agriculture Department.

USDA officials said that Zoo director Warren Thomas failed to respond to a letter they sent him nearly a year ago demanding an immediate response to a list of 10 chronic violations.

“We explained that there were some very significant problems,” said William R. DeHaven, the USDA’s supervisor of animal care for the western United States. “There was enough there for me to initiate some legal action.”

In the year since that letter, “things went from bad to worse” and the USDA began a formal investigation of the zoo, DeHaven said.

At the same time, the Humane Society of the United States has written a scathing letter to the Agriculture Department complaining of a “shameful record of non-compliance” at the zoo. The society criticized the zoo for “inadequate exhibits” that are “deplorably barren and sadly outdated.”

In an interview this week, Thomas rejected the Humane Society’s criticism, saying: “Who the hell are they? . . . They’re just people off the street.”

Thomas said he does not recall receiving the USDA letter and blamed middle-level employees for failing to inform him of the repeated USDA citations. He said he started a crash program last month to address the federal violations and, for the moment, has headed off legal action.

Other problems cited by the USDA:

* Gorilla housing had inadequate ventilation, as well as peeling paint and cracked and chipped concrete. Inspectors first noted the problem in 1987 and warned that the surfaces had to be repaired to allow proper cleaning.

* A number of animal barns had peeling paint that could fall and be ingested by the animals.

* Barn doors throughout the zoo had jagged, splintered or rotting edges that could injure animals. Though the problem was first noted in 1987, some barn doors still have not been repaired or replaced.

* Drainage problems and standing pools of water and urine were found in and around animal enclosures. On Aug. 22, 1989, inspectors noted that runoff from thawing fish had contaminated the polar bear enclosure. Nearly a year later, the situation had not been corrected.

* Toxic substances were stored in the same area as food additives and medicine.

* Grain sheds contained open bags, spilled food, mouse feces and dead mice, a situation that inspectors said could lead to the spread of disease.

In a warning letter to Thomas this week, DeHaven set deadlines of Sept. 30 and Nov. 15 for completion of some repairs, but no extensions would be granted on other matters, including rodent, drainage and water-testing problems.

DeHaven said that prosecution is likely if the problems continue. “We would use this warning (letter) to seek the maximum penalty allowed by law,” he said.

The USDA, which inspects and licenses animal exhibits, could seek penalties of up to $2,500 per violation or revoke the zoo’s license to operate. Fines could be significant, DeHaven said, and probably would be calculated at $2,500 per day per animal.

Thomas said this week that he first became aware of the USDA citations in July. “As soon as I saw it, I nearly had a heart attack,” he said.

Some of the problems, he said, can be blamed on the age of the zoo, which was built 25 years ago. “We’re playing catch-up constantly,” he said.

In a letter to the USDA last month, John W. Grandy, a vice president of the Humane Society, said the zoo’s record of federal violations is “unacceptable” and that the animals are housed in an “irresponsible and inhumane manner.”

The Los Angeles Zoo “has a lot of barren exhibits” that do not stimulate animals, Grandy said. A report by Humane Society investigator Lisa Landres says, for instance, that the zoo’s elephant areas are relegating the animals to “boredom and monotony.” Landres is a former elephant keeper who left the San Diego Zoo after a controversy in which she objected to the beating of an elephant.

Wendy Greuel, Mayor Tom Bradley’s liaison to the Department of Recreation and Parks, said Wednesday that no one outside the zoo had been made aware of the problems and that the mayor’s office planned to ask for a complete report on the progress of corrective actions.

Greuel said that recreation and parks commissioners, who oversee the zoo, “are jumping on this immediately because they are concerned.”