Despite frequent auditory assaults by construction projects, sirens, loud stereos and 3 a.m. garbage pickups, New York until rather recently had the country’s oldest municipal noise code, which hadn’t been overhauled since the mid-1970s.
The Bloomberg administration adopted the general Noise Control Code in 2005, a set of regulations that contains extensive provisions for construction, which accounts for almost half of all noise complaints the city receives. Now an expanded version, the Rules for Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation, written from scratch by a panel representing a variety of interests, has developers buzzing.
The detailed, 31-page document, which goes into effect on July 1, aims to further muzzle the sounds of construction sites.
Builders will be required to file a construction noise mitigation plan and post it on construction sites. It proscribes the use of noise tents and perimeter fences or portable barriers with acoustic insulation, and requires testing and certification of exhaust mufflers for all equipment with internal combustion engines.
Builders, of course, are worried about the bottom line.
“The administration has worked out a thoughtful compromise, but clearly costs will rise,” said Chris Ward, managing director of the General Contractors Association of Greater New York and former commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, who helped write the regulations. “This provides a reasonable framework, but if the noise limits were really strict, nothing would get built.”
The new code also recommends the use of low-impact pile drivers, jackhammers and blasting devices, like those used in Europe, including recommendations of specific brands and model numbers.
But by singling out particular types of equipment the city could increase costs, developers say.
“That gives manufacturers a license to raise their prices,” said Bronx-based builder Bill Friedlich.
Over a dozen different pieces of equipment, including bulldozers, pile drivers, air compressors and “construction devices with internal engines,” are subject to the strictures. The code also requires special measures for work conducted near schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
The typical method of breaking rock, largely unfeasible in the city, is dynamite. Even more so in the security-conscious post-Sept. 11 climate, “jackhammers are the alternative to dynamite, but there are lots of ways to break up rock,” said Friedlich. “The quiet way is to add a chemical expander and wait several hours, but the pile of rock left over is only usable for gravel. It wastes resources and is the most expensive way to do the job.”
Noise is moving to the forefront of environmental concerns, said Arline Bronzaft, a noise expert who helped draft the code. The new mantra for developers is to implement sound “source control,” or sound buffering systems. Experts hope the catchphrase will become part of construction parlance and help raise consciousness of the issue.
The city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which will enforce the code, employs 49 inspectors who responded to 41,944 noise complaints citywide in 2006; of these, 49 percent were construction-related.
“We are ready to enforce the law 24 hours a day, but it will be complaint-driven,” said Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Ian Michaels. “We’re not going to look for noise violations on our own.”
By far, the largest fine in the revised noise code is for nightclubs that exceed the standard decibel level for music.
The most onerous construction penalty, issued for working outside the 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekday window without a special permit, is $3,500 maximum ($875 minimum) for the first violation and $10,500 maximum ($2,650 minimum) for the third violation. The responsible party at a construction site has three business days to address a violation before they are fined.
Property managers are also subject to the new code. Air circulation devices, like air conditioners and ventilation systems, may not exceed 42 decibels when measured in any nearby dwelling unit with the window or terrace open.
“We brought in a noise consultant to measure the decibels emitted by our conference room, and the sound of just the ambient noise in the room reached 48 decibels,” said Marolyn Davenport, senior vice president at REBNY. “This code is a big deal because compliance is going to be difficult.”
Yet the rules, predicated on the term “unreasonable noise,” offer some wiggle room. Dump truck regulations state that “quieter back-up alarms shall be used in pre-2008 model year vehicles when practicable for the job site,” for example, and the phrases “where appropriate” and “to the maximum extent possible” pepper the text.
Some of the construction provisions, particularly the one mandating that work take place between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, may be waived if the petitioner can demonstrate undue hardship. A special permit is required from the Department of Buildings, but these are easy to get, said city councilman Tony Avella of Queens, who says the rules should be tighter.
“The undue hardship clause makes the entire construction clause meaningless and unenforceable,” he said. “Construction outside these time limits has become so pervasive that people are surprised to learn that it is illegal.”
In March, Avella submitted a bill that attempts to close the loophole by repealing the clause.
Davenport at REBNY considers the bill unrealistic.
“It would be too dangerous to assemble a crane in the middle of Times Square during a weekday, and sometimes once you start work, you have to keep it going,” she said. “The challenge for the city was to increase the quality of life without bringing construction to a halt, but these are tough standards to meet. It’s a bit of a Big Brother approach.”