EPA SUIT NOT AIMED AT WORST POLLUTER SCOFFLAWS GO UNTOUCHED AS L.A. TARGETED FOR PAST SHORTCOMINGS.

Byline: Ellen Stein Local View

WHEN the federal government files suit against a city, typically it is to force that city to take steps to comply with federal law.

If a city like Malibu, for example, is allowing raw sewage to sweep into creeks and ultimately foul beaches and ocean water, one could understand a federal enforcement action. Or if beaches in Orange County are closed more than 200 days in the course of a year because of sewage contamination, one could understand federal suits against several cities in that county. In neither instance has the federal government filed suit.

The city of Los Angeles does not have raw sewage leaking from septic tanks into creeks nor has a beach in our city been closed in the past year by virtue of a defect in our sewer system. And yet, the Environmental Protection Agency recently sued the city of Los Angeles for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act by allowing spills to occur in its sewer collection system over the past three years.

Given such an enforcement action, one might imagine that the public's health is threatened or that the city is some kind of environmental outlaw. Neither is true.

Given the facts about our sewer collection system and what we are doing to improve it, the lawsuit is unnecessary. It is almost as if we are being sued to force us to do what we are already doing, and doing much better than any other big city in the country.

The public should have confidence that the Los Angeles sewer collection system works exceptionally well even as major steps are being taken to make it work better.

The city does not ``allow'' sewer spill to occur - 99.9 percent of the total volume of spills the EPA is talking about occurred during the extraordinary El Nino rains in 1998. The unprecedented rainfall simply overwhelmed certain sections of our very complex 6,500-mile system of pipes and pipelines.

The city is addressing those choke points with $600 million in ongoing improvements that will be completed in the next four years. The city is investing $1.4 billion over the next 10 years to expand our capacity, which is the ultimate solution for El Nino rain events.

This investment is on top of the $1.6 billion we have spent on the Hyperion Treatment Plant and the $800 million in collection system improvements in the past 10 years.

So we are already doing a lot to minimize the possibility of spills from sewers that can be overloaded by unusual incidents of too much rain too quickly. However, we also have what are called ``dry-weather'' spills. The single largest cause of these is the build-up of grease that can effectively block a sewer line, causing a back-up that can lead to a spill. Roots and vandalism contribute to this problem, but fats, oils and grease dumped by restaurants are major culprits, and the City Council will soon consider an ordinance to deal with that.

When it comes to the maintenance of our collection system, the only significant difference of opinion between the city and EPA - and it hardly warrants a lawsuit - is what requirements to impose on restaurants to minimize sewer line blockage caused by grease in order to minimize dry-weather spills.

There are 10,000 restaurants in Los Angeles, many of the small mom- and-pop variety. The EPA wants the city to require that every restaurant install a grease interceptor that costs from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on restaurant size, plumbing, etc.

Such a requirement would impose a minimum $200 million burden on the restaurants of the city and force many out of business altogether. The city's approach is to require best management practices of all restaurants, and a phased and targeted installation of grease interceptors in restaurants in particular areas of the city where the sewer collection grease blockages most commonly occur. We happen to believe that the city's approach is economically sensible and environmentally responsible.

A 1999 EPA study compared sewer collection systems in 42 cities around the country. The study found Los Angeles to be well below the national average in number of spills per mile of sewer. We had one-third the number of spills of other large cities and one-half the average of all cities in the study. Other EPA studies have applauded the operation and maintenance of the city's collection system.

One could wonder endlessly why it is that the EPA would go after the city of Los Angeles while environmental scofflaws around us go untouched. Such wonder is not productive, but we should acknowledge that because of our size and visibility the city is often an inviting target for litigious third-party bounty hunters and overzealous federal regulators alike.

Lawsuit or no, the public should know that our sewer collection system, while not perfect, is fast on its way to becoming the best in the country.