NOISE RATTLES LAUSD REPLACING COOLERS MAY COST MILLIONS.

Byline: Helen Gao Staff Writer

Five years after deciding to install noisy, wall-mounted air conditioners, Los Angeles Unified School District officials face millions of dollars in potential new costs because of potentially tougher new noise standards for classrooms.

Using nearly $400 million from the $2.4 billion in Proposition BB money and state funding, LAUSD officials chose to put air conditioners mostly outside windows rather than on rooftops or use central air because it was a cheaper and quicker - if noisier - way to cool classrooms.

LAUSD officials now find themselves in league with the air-conditioning industry, fighting a new guideline that would limit classroom noise to 35 decibels - a fraction of the background noise generated by the window air conditioners.

They fear that the guideline would eventually become a state or federal regulation, and force the entire air-conditioning program to be redone while adding sharply to the cost of building new schools.

David Lubman, co-chairman of a group formed by the Acoustical Society of America to develop the guideline, said scientific studies indicate that noisy environments affect learning, especially among children who are learning English as a second language.

``Two-thirds of the students at LAUSD are English-language learners,'' he said. ``(Having noisy classrooms) is a profound disadvantage for them. They just won't be able to hear the phonemes (basic sound units of a language).

``If you can't hear the phonemes, you can't produce them. You can't learn to speak and you can't learn to read.''

In addition to the Acoustical Society, the American National Standards Institute has adopted 35 decibels - the equivalent of a quiet living room - as the ideal ambient level for optimal learning.

Air conditioners at LAUSD schools are supposed to operate at up to 50 decibels, but a recent survey of 157 units indicated that 24 percent exceeded the district's selmposed standard and are as loud as 61 decibels.

That is similar to the noise level at a large department store - and more than five times louder than the 35-decibel standard.

In a recent letter to the American National Standards Institute, Richard Luke, LAUSD's director of planning and design, criticized the 35-decibel goal as unrealistic and cost-prohibitive.

``Once it becomes a law, there is no variance from the law. You are either in compliance or out of compliance,'' Luke said in an interview, decrying the implications as ``too drastic to face'' and a ``frightening thing.''

He said in the letter that despite the best efforts of the district to muffle noisy air conditioners, it has only had ``limited success.''

Joining Luke to oppose the acoustical standard are the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Modular Building Institute, School Facility Manufacturers' Association, and a host of California education institutions.

School board member Julie Korenstein, who found out about Luke's letter last week, said she was ``amazed'' and ``alarmed'' by his opposition to the acoustical guideline.

``I certainly believe we need to push aggressively in that direction,'' she said. ``We want to assist children in learning, not hinder them.''

Angelo Bellomo, the district's director of environmental health and safety, also expressed support for the new standard, saying it will provide an incentive for manufacturers to build superior products.

``Without this goal, why would those organizations be incentivized to provide better quality acoustics?'' he asked.

Scott Alexander, spokesman for the Modular Building Institute, agreed that the focus should be on construction materials. He opposes the 35- decibel standard and suggests that a criterion be established on sound transmission through walls.

That way, he said, ``regardless of the noise inside or outside, the wall has to meet this.''

To achieve 35 decibels in a classroom, Luke said, a new school's construction cost could go up by as much as 14.5 percent, based on conservative estimates.

He added that walls, windows, ceilings and other building materials would have to have superior sound insulation to keep out traffic and other outside noises.

Lubman disputed Luke's assertions. He said quieter units that meet the 35-decibel standard would drive up the cost of a new school by only two tenths of 1 percent to 4.5 percent, depending on the type of air conditioning.

To meet the 35-decibel standard at existing schools, however, could be extremely costly, because central air - which is the most quiet and efficient - cannot be readily installed. It requires a system of ducts to be built to deliver the cool air.

The next best alternative to central air, although more expensive than wall-mounted units, is rooftop installations, said Keith Henderson, a contractor who worked on two Los Angeles Unified schools.

Henderson, who blew the whistle on the district's substandard air conditioners and sued later over nonpayment, said that for some unknown reason the district rejected rooftop installations in favor of wall mounting.

The result was that the units his company installed all tested over 50 decibels.

Henderson said the model of air conditioners the district asked him to install was not designed for mounting outside windows, and the problem was compounded by inappropriate specifications and drawings that did not reflect real conditions.

``What we believe occurred was that they just took a unit off the shelf and designed the installation in a way so that this unit would work,'' he said, noting that the district should have instead ordered units made according to specific noise criteria.

After Henderson's air conditioners failed the 50-decibel test, the district directed him to muffle the noise by covering the compressor with a one-inch-thick foam - a measure that could cut the life span of a unit.

``A compressor is designed not to have anything over it. It dissipates the heat that is drawn out of the building,'' Henderson said. ``If you put a blanket on it, it keeps the heat in and shortens the life of a compressor.''

So far the district has completed 624 heating, venting and air-conditioning projects at a cost of $218 million. Thirty-three other projects worth $12 million are under way and 499 others, estimated to cost $169 million, are in the plans. The projects add up to a total cost of $397 million.

Officials were not able to provide the original heating, ventilation and air-conditioning budget. However, based on an April 2000 budget, it would cost the district $428 million to complete HVAC projects at existing schools, and it was short about $166 million.

Voters are being asked by the district to approve an additional $3.35 billion bond on the Nov. 5 ballot to help fund renovations and new schools.

James Delker, acting deputy chief executive of facilities for the district, defended window-mounted units, saying the district had to balance cost with time constraints and other trade-offs.

``The primary reason for going to window units was cost and speed. You can put them in quickly,'' he said. ``A lot of the time, getting something this year versus something next year is important.''