Madrid-Barajas Airport - Aena Barajas_i.pdf · Madrid-Barajas Airport is located 12 kilometres...

Madrid-BarajasAirportEnvironmental ManagementSystem 2007

2 3

4 4 6 7 8 9 10 16

23 34

39 42 44 47

53

57 63 64

Presentation

Introduction

Environmental Management System

Environmental Policy

Managerial Review of System Objectives and Targets

Audits

Environmental Aspects

Noise

Air

Water

Waste

Consumption

Flora

Fauna

Evaluation of Environmental Aspects SERCOM (Company Control Service)

OFIMA (Environmental Service and Information Offi ce)

Future Projects

Glossary

Presentation

Madrid-Barajas Airport continued to carry out measures in 2007 to improve the protection of the environment. Over the course of 2006, when the airport´s extension was being built, the infrastructures of the new areas of the airport were reinforced and extended to prevent and minimise environmental impact associated with airport activity. To this end, the airport extended the well water control net-work , improved the air quality network and began the testing phase at the solid waste transfer plant. Facilities and systems geared to pollution prevention and control were all fi ne-tuned and optimised thus, improving the per-formance of some already existing installations.

We also continued to apply the Compensatory Measures set forth in the Declaration of Impact of 2001, conducting environmental monitoring and supervision of environmental impact and sending detailed information regarding this to the public organisations involved.

We would also like to highlight the measures we have taken to minimise noise pollution in the surrounding area. Most notably, we began to incorporate P-RNAV fl ight paths in 2007, reduced the number of operations by marginally compliant aircraft, and started charging a noise tax depending on type of aircraft and time of operation.

Meanwhile, communication with local administrations, institutions and neighbouring communities continues to be a fundamental part of our Environmental

Management System, in the interests of reaching a consensus on the measures to be taken to minimise the environmental impact of airport activity on the surrounding area. Providing information to the public on the airport´s environmental aspects also continues to be one of our main objectives. To improve this aspect, we remodelled the Expoambiente Showroom and Airplane Exhibitor in 2007, both of which will open to the public in 2008.

This Environmental report is published every year, and provides information on measures taken and results obtained. All the measures we took were geared to conserving the environment and social well-being, objectives we achieved thanks to the efforts and collaboration of Aena staff, as well as airline companies, concessionaires, and everyone involved in activities related to air transportation at Madrid-Barajas airport.

This report provides data on actions carried out in 2007, as well as offering a comparison with previous years so as to show the evolution of the main environmental indicators of activity at the airport.

2

Introduction

Madrid-Barajas Airport is located 12 kilometres northeast of Madrid, on the plain in the river Jarama valley. Access by public transport is fast and convenient, in terms of both diversity and accessibility (direct access via the Madrid underground to the airport´s new terminal T4 opened to the public in 2007). The airport also has seven public car parks, with more than 16,500 parking spaces to service private vehicles.

Madrid-Barajas Airport is now one of the largest airports in Europe and the largest in Spain in terms of number of fl ights, passengers and cargo, with more than 95 airline companies from around the world operating at the airport. The opening of the new Terminal 4 in 2006 furnished the airport with two new buildings (T4 and T4 Satellite), new car parks, two new runways, new road access and state-of-the-art services. Terminals T1 and T2 underwent structural remodelling in 2007, and the airport continued to incorporate the latest information systems. All this has made Madrid one of the main logistical centres in Europe.

The airport serviced 52.1 million passengers in 2007, refl ecting an increase of 13.8% with respect to 2006 in the volume of users of the airport. Likewise, the number of fl ights went up considerably, with a total of 483,000 operations, refl ecting an 11% increase with respect to the previous year. Cargo transport, however, decreased by 1.1% with respect to 2006. It is worth noting that the increases in fl ights and passengers between 2006 and 2007 were far greater than those produced between 2005 and 2006. Moreover, although cargo transport has seen a decrease in the past two years, the decrease between 2006 and 2007 was much smaller than that of the previous year.

3

MADRID / BARAJAS AIRPORT 2006-2007 COMPARATIVE TABLE

DATA 2006 2007 Variation (%)

Passengers 45.8 million 52.1 million 13.8

Flights 434,959 483,284 11.1

Cargo 325.7 million 322.2 million - 1.1

NUMBER OF FLIGHTS/MONTH

2005-2007

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Nu

mb

er o

f

fl ig

hts

2005 20072006


2005 20072006

NUMBER OF PASSENGERS/MONTH

2005-2007

Nu

mb

er o

f p

asse

ng

ers

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0


An Environmental Management System (EMS) is the part of an organisation´s management system geared to developing and implementing environmental policy and managing environmental aspects.

The ISO 14001:2004 standards followed by Madrid-Bara-jas Airport contain all the elements necessary to develop and implement such a system.

Environmental Policy

Madrid-Barajas Airport has been certifi ed by Aenor in accordance with international ISO 14001:2004 standards since May 2000. The airport extended its EMS in 2007, applying the principles of its environmental policy to all construction work being done outside the airport com-plex, as part of the compensatory measures set forth in the Declaration of Environmental Impact 2001 (DAY 01).

Commitment to the Environment

As a leading provider of air transportation services through its airports and air navigation system, and operating in a framework of safety, quality and effi ciency, Aena, Spanish Airports and Air Navigation, is conscious of its commitment to society regarding the protection of the environment, and its contribution to sustainable air transportation.In keeping with this responsibility, Aena sets as one of its targets the excellence of the services it provides. Within the framework of the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Growth, this means applying measures designed to foster the sustainable development of air transportation by balancing social, environmental and economic costs and benefi ts, with positive results for our society.

Along these lines, Aena´s commitment to the environment has grown constantly and continuously. This is refl ected in the many programs and projects we have introduced, as well as the progressive increase in the resources we allocate to achieve our environmental objectives. This is all stated in Aena´s Environmental Policy, which is subject to continual revision, and which has become deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of our organisation.

We have moreover incorporated the environmental variable into all stages of our activity: planning, design, construction and rendering of services. Through the use of appropriate indicators, we have been able to establish preventive, protective, compensatory and corrective measures that minimise the potential impact

associated with airport activities, air navigation and infrastructure development, thus guaranteeing higher levels of environmental quality, economic progress and nature conservancy.

In keeping with our commitment to the environment, we encourage airport and air navigation centres to adopt environmental management systems. Implementing these systems, which are based on accepted international standards, allows airports to attain environmental certifi cation.

Specifi cally, in keeping with the agreements of the Kyoto Protocol, Aena´s goal is to reduce the emission of gases contributing to climate change through the effi cient use of energy resources and the increasing use of renewable energy, whenever this is compatible with operative demands.

Aena´s commitment to environmental excellence as well as the need to respond to social and environmental demands for the sustainable development of air transportation are refl ected in our environmental principles, which are outlined below:

4


Environmental Principles

Respect and protect the environment as a basic objective In the management of Aena´s activities with regard to airports and air navigation, as well as in the development of aeronautical infrastructures and commercial outlets and services.

Ensure that the growth of air traffi c is compatible with environmental conservation, so that activities carried out today foster sustainable development and do not compromise the quality of life of future generations.

Establish procedures to ensure updated information on and compliance with legal requirements and any other requisites applicable to Aena´s activities.

Introduce an Environmental Management System in every centre, in keeping with Aena´s Environmental Policy. This means periodically setting environmental objectives and targets, as well as systematically checking and evaluating their level of compliance to ensure continual improvement and pollution prevention.

Promote actions geared to minimising acoustic levels and preserving the quality of life of the population residing in the airport´s vicinity.

Prevent atmospheric pollution that could be associated with Aena´s activities by using the technical and economic resources available, minimising chemical emissions and establishing adequate measures of revision, monitoring and correction.

Encourage environmentally sound reuse, recycling and handling of waste.

Ration the consumption of energy and natural resources, through energy-saving practices and an increasing use of renewable energy.

Act in a transparent manner with administrations, institutions and communities in the areas where Aena conducts its activities. Cooperate closely with them in the prevention of the possible impact on the environment

of activities associated with air transportation.

Communícate Aena´s Environmental Policy to all employees, contractors and concessionaires, and make it available to its customers and society at large.

Promote environmental awareness in the staff through training and sensitisation programs that stress the importance of performing activities correctly and encourage employees´ participation in the fulfi lment of objectives.

Adjust periodically Aena´s Environmental Policy to the new objectives of the organisation, adapting it to any new needs or demands that may arise.

Madrid, 2 June 2003 President - General Manager of Aena

In order to achieve the EMS´ objective of continual improvement, the system´s achievements and weak points are monitored regularly by way of meetings of the Environmental Subcommittee.

This body, made up of representatives from different divisions, deals with everything from pursuing set targets and following up on audit results and detected non-compliances to establishing a methodology for applying new environmental regulations, etc.

5


Managerial Review

The airport´s EMS is revised annually on a global level by the Managerial Committee by way of a process called the “Managerial System Review”. Thie Committee is in charge of integrating the airport’s Environmental Policy into the management of other areas of airport activity, as well as evaluating the environment in objective terms and super-vising the maintenance of the EMS to ensure its continued adequacy, adaptation and effectiveness.

The Managerial System Review evaluates opportunities for improvement and the need to make changes in the system, including environmental policy and environmental objectives.

More specifi cally, the review:

Evaluates the results of internal audits and compliance with legal requirements and other requisites.Communicates with external interested parties. This includes including responding to complaints.Keeps track of the organisation´s environmental activity.Records the level of achievement of objectives and targets.Monitors the status of corrective and preventive measuresIntegrates any circumstantial changes, including the development of legal requirements and other requisites related to the airport´s environmental aspects as well as recommendations for improvement.

6

Madrid-Barajas Airport established an environmental management program in 2007 geared to improving its envi-ronmental practices. The table below shows the objectives set for 2007 and their level of achievement.

7


2007 OBJECTIVES SET ACHIEVEDLEVEL OF

ACHIE-VEMENT

MINIMISE ATMOSPHERICEMISSIONS (NOx) by 2% BY CARRYING OUT 100% OF THE ACTIONS PLANNED (The reduction achieved was 0.017% less than in 2006)

Improve and conduct the planned replacement of GHE for DIA 01 (replacement by natural gas and electricity-powered vehicles).

The planned actions were carried out. Construction of gas-distributing faci-lities permitting the expansion of the fl eet of gas-powered vehicles and equi-pment was postponed to 2008-2009.

Offer ecological driving lessons to 80% of Aena staff with private vehicles..

The courses were given, although the percentage of participants was lower than projected (60%)

IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY (Initial measures taken, project postponed to 2008)

Plan and conduct study of the ground-water (streams) control network to obtain knowledge of water quality, based on at least 90% valid data.

Postponed to 2008. (28% of the plan-ned measures were taken).

CONDUCT PLAN MODELLING THE DISPERSION OF ATMOSPHERIC CONTA-MINANTS (Phase 1 achieved. Phase 2 postponed to 2008)

Conduct 100% of the actions projected for the year.

To be continued in 2008. (85% of the projected actions were carried out).

OPTIMISE HANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE TO ACHIEVE SEPARATION OF 10% OF WASTE (9.6% was achieved)

Take measures to ensure the proper separation of waste by sanitation companies.

In process.

Take measures to ensure the optimal performance of the waste transfe plant and T123´s incorporation into the airport´s current management system.

In process.

Conduct environmental awareness

campaign.Achieved.

Conduct pilot program separating containers in Aena offi ces.

Achieved.

IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SGMA SO THAT 90% OF NON-COMPLIANCES ARE CLOSED BY YEAR END (49% of NCs were closed. Redefi nition of system to treat NCs proposed)

Improve environmental practices of Aena companies and staff (by conducting and analysing surveys, publishing and distributing Best Practices Manuals and modifying procedures to monitor non-compliances).

The planned measures were taken, al-though the percentage of closed NCs was not achieved.

PostponedIn processAchieved


Audits

The airport audits the Environmental Management System at defi ned intervals in order to check:

if the system complies with the requisites established in the EMS, the ISO 14001 standards and any other applicable legislation.

if the system is effective and is being adequately maintained.

Following is a brief summary of audits of the airport´s EMS since its introduction, as well as the num-ber of non-compliances detected in each audit. Both internal audits and those conducted to obtain certifi cation have been taken into account, the latter including both monitoring and renewal of certifi cation audits.

So as to ensure that non-compliances detected in an audit are corrected, a document called CAP (Corrective Actions Plan) is issued after the audit. This determines the appropriate corrective actions for each non-compliance, as well as the time limit for each action, and the person(s) responsible for its execution. Once the corrective action has been carried out, its effectiveness is monitored over a period of time.

88

Year Audit Non-compliances detected

2002 (April) Internal 12

2002 (May) Monitoring 3

2002 (November) Internal 12

2003 (April) Renewal 4


2004 (March) Internal 12

2004 (May) Monitoring 3


2005 (March) Internal 10

2005 (April) Monitoring 3


2006 (May) Internal 6

2006 (June) Renewal 4

2007 (April) Internal 5

2007 (June) Monitoring 5


Madrid-Barajas Airport has established mechanisms to identify, evaluate and record environmental aspects genera-ted by airport activity that could adversely affect the environment (air, water, soil, generation of waste and use of natural resources) and over which the airport could exert control.

The aspects identifi ed include those associated with both past and present activity, as well as those that could derive from future activities or projects, both in normal operating conditions and in potential emergency or risk situations.

An environmental aspect is an aspect of an organisation’s activities, products or services that could interact with the environment. Environmental aspects are classifi ed as follows:

Environmental aspect in normal and abnormal conditions: an aspect generated by activities or services con-ducted at the aiport in normal and abnormal operating conditions but always under pre-established condi-tions.

Potential environmental aspect: an aspect generated by an emergency, accident or incident (risk situations) that could arise during the course of the airport’s activities and services.

An environmental impact is any change, either adverse or benefi cial, in the environment, resulting either wholly or partially from an organisation’s environmental aspects.

Noise

Introduction

Noise pollution continues to be one of the most signifi cant environmental aspects in the area surrounding Madrid-Barajas Airport. Given this, we continued our efforts to minimise noise pollution in 2007 by both improving our monitoring of airline operations and activating various work procedures with all parties involved in aeronautical activity.

9


A. Monitoring Systems

The airport has two systems for monitoring and controlling aeronautical operations.

SIRMA – Noise and Flight Path Mo-nitoring System

SIRMA receives information from NMTs (Noise-Monitoring Terminals) located at the airport and in neighbouring commu-nities. It also gets information from radar data and fl ight plans provided by the SA-CTA system.

SIRMA associates the noise registered by each NMT with the aircraft that produces it, which is identifi ed via radar data and fl ight plans.

Map showing location of microphones

in the SIRMA network

10


TMR Ubicación

1 La Moraleja

2 Algete

3 SS de los Reyes

4 Fuente el Fresno

5 S. Domingo Sur

6 F. del Saz

7 Paracuellos

8 Mejorada

9 Belvis

10 S. Fernando

11 Coslada estación

12 Alameda de Osuna

13 Barajas

16 Tres Cantos

18 El Molar

20 Torrejón

21 S. Domingo Norte

23 Los Berrocales

24 Ciudalcampo

25 Prado Norte

26 Club de Campo

27 La Granjilla

SCVA – Noise Control and Vigilance System

The Visual and Acoustic Control System (SCVA) consists of two noise monitors and three cameras. These monitor compliance with restrictions set by CIA 2001 for night-time operations on aprons 5 and 6 and the South Pier, the airport zones that are closest to populated areas.

Location of SCVA cameras in 2007

11

50

60

70

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27

Leq _ plane day 41 57 57 57 53 56 53 61 64 65 67 46 53 46 48 56 52 53 52 54 51 61

Leq _ plane night 37 35 36 45 47 43 42 48 56 51 54 33 38 25 39 45 49 42 31 54 46 41

NMT LOCATION

1 La Moraleja

2 Algete

3 SS de los Reyes

4 Fuente el Fresno

5 South S. Domingo

6 F. del Saz

7 Paracuellos

8 Mejorada

9 Belvis

10 S. Fernando

11 Coslada station

12 Alameda de Osuna

13 Barajas

16 Tres Cantos

18 El Molar

20 Torrejón

21 North S. Domingo

23 Los Berrocales

24 Ciudalcampo

25 Prado Norte

26 Club de Campo

27 La Granjilla


B. Measures Taken in 2007 to Minimise Acoustic Impact

Legislation:

We continued to apply DGAC’s Resolution of 30 August in 2007 by reducing operations with marginally compliant aircraft, our objective being to eliminate these fl eets entirely by the year 2012. In order to achieve this goal, the resolution calls for a gradual phasing out, amounting to a reduction of between 15 and 20% per year.

We have also extended the time restriction for operations by aircraft with a noise quotient of 4 or above to 23.00-7.00 local time.

The airport also continued to monitor compliance in 2007 with operational restrictions set forth in DGAC´s Aeronautical Circular 2/2006 of 26 July regarding noise attenuation. Specifi cally, this means monitoring air-craft so that they do not leave established departure paths until they have reached fl ying altitude 100 (10,000 ft.).

With the publication of RD1367/2007 of 19 October establishing a Noise Law, the airport initiated a series of modifi cations, in keeping with the law’s stipulations, such as a methodology for calculating monthly and yearly levels of Leq total and Leq-plane. As of November, the airport has presented in CSAM’s noise reports monthly data as a logarithmic average of Leq_total and Leq_plane for daytime and night-time periods.

We have begun to charge a noise tax, in accordance with the fi nal stipulation of the Air Quality and Pro-tection of the Atmosphere Law 34/2007 of 15 November. This new tax is added to the Landing Tax paid by airline companies. The objective of this measure is to discourage airlines from using noisy aircraft, which is the most penalised under this law. The tax includes a higher penalty for night-time operations, double the amount of that applied to daytime operations. (See table.) . The airport applied a 65% discount on this tax in 2007.

(*): B747-200-300; DC8-5060; DC10; A300B2; An124; B727; B737-200; IL76; Tu154; An72; YAK42; IL86; DC9; IL62; Tu134

(**): MD88-87-83-82; DC9-10; B747-737-733; A321-320-310-300

Note: The types of aircraft indicated here are only for purposes of orientation, given that acoustic rating depends on the

noise certifi cate of each aircraft.

Airport Operations:

As of June, night-time fl ights have been taking off from runway 36L instead of runway 36R in keeping with the agreement reached at CSAM meeting no. 24 on 13 July 2006.

12

Acoustic rating(category)

Justifi cation Penalisation

Description 07.00 to 22.59(LT)

23.00 to 06.59(LT)

1 Marginally compliant aircraft (*) 70% 140%

2Airplanes that do not incorporate

the latest technology (**)20% 40%

3 Airplanes with the latest technology 0% 0%

4 Airplanes currently being designed 0% 0%


Comparison of fl ight plaths. The fi gure on the right refl ects the fl ight path using P-RNAV procedures (South Confi guration).

Monitoring and Control:

The airport’s laptop campaign (2006-2007) was completed in 2007. Fulfi lling the commitment the airport made at CSAM meeting no. 23 on 27 April 2006, laptops have been installed in the following municipalities: Ajalvir, Colmenar Viejo, Arganda del Rey, Torres de la Alameda, Fresno del Torote and Manzanares el Real.

The airport conducted various noise-monitoring checks in the municipalities of Soto de Viñuelas and Soto del Real.

The airport introduced a new procedure in June to detect, analyse and report to DGAC any instances of non-compliance with operating procedures established in AIP, the Aeronautical Circular of 2/2006 and DGAC’s Resolution of 20 August 2006.

In August, departure paths based on P-RNAV precision navigation systems went into effect on the airport’s south confi guration.The use of these precision navigation systems, which are based on geographical coordinates, reduces the dispersion of routes and consequently the repercussions on neighbouring commu-nities

13

Last November the airport set up a fl ight path analysis committee, made up of representatives of various associations of pilots and airline companies, DGAC, the management of Aerial Navigation and that of the airport. The purpose of this committee is to serve as a technical body advising competent agencies, especially CSAM, regarding the approval of fl ight paths and acoustic impact. Moreover, it evaluates airline operators to ensure the correct execution of noise attenuation procedures established in the airport’s AIP and DGAC circulars, and assesses airline operators on their compliance with noise-related specifi cations and conditions set forth in the DIA.

The airport also set up a technical group to provide support to the committee.

In order to reduce the number of non-compliances made by aircraft in their take-off and landing operations, the airport initiated work lines with airline companies on an individual basis. Meetings focused on impro-ving adherence to nominal fl ight paths by analysing specifi c points of confl ict and coordinating compliance through adjustments to fl ight procedures. This has achieved very good results, as can be seen in the graphs below.


Before After Before After

14


Community Relations and Dissemination of Information

In February CSAM held its 25th meeting, whose main focus was the plan to review acoustic impact. The air-port told town halls and organisations present at the meeting that it would keep its commitment to present a new acoustic impact plan based on real operating data covering the year after the fl ight paths designed for the four runways started operating. Given that Madrid’s new TMA began operating on 28 September 2006, data was gathered up to October 2007.

In response to the new composition of town hall teams following the municipal elections in May, the airport held a round of meetings with all town halls affected by the airport’s operations between September and November. The airport explained in these meetings both the current situation and the measures Aena was taking to reduce acoustic impact on neighbouring communities, paying special attention to each case.

The airport began developing a system called ENMPublic in 2007, in which SIRMA data can be seen on a photographic map provided by the Google Map tool. This allows take-off and landing routes to be visualised in both real and historical time and provides historical data on noise.

This is useful as it can be made available to the public as part of the airport’s plan to disseminate information on the environment. This system will be developed in phases until its defi nitive introduction.

C. Milestones

The table below shows the main measures that have been taken in recent years.

15

2006

The SIRMA system was modifi ed on 1 April to include 29 NMTs: 3 NMTs dedicated to

SCVA, 4 portable NMTs to carry out noise-monitoring campaigns in places that do not

have fi xed NMTs, and 22 fi xed NMTs.

2006Opening of terminal T4 and the new airfi eld. Flights began to be distributed over

four runways.

2006From May to the end of the year, noise-monitoring campaigns were conducted in

neighbouring communities, following the commitment made in CSAM.

2006

In response to the request made in CSAM, 3 new fi xed NMTs were introduced into the

noise-monitoring network for the residential developments of North Prado (Algete),

La Granjilla and Club de Campo (San Sebastián de los Reyes).

26/07/2006Publication of DGAC’s Aeronautical Circular of 26 July forbidding aircraft to leave

established departure paths before reaching fl ying altitude FL100.

30/08/2006Publication of DGAC’s Resolution of 30 August on operational restrictions in Madrid-

Barajas Airport.

28/09/2006New TMA went into effect with the operation of fl ight paths whose associated noise

impact was approved by CSAM on 28/10/2004..

2006 Inclusion of noise tax in the Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere Law.

2007 Introduction of P-RNAV take-off manoeuvres

2007 Introduction of noise tax for aircraft operating at the airport.

11/2007 Creation of fl ight path analysis committee and supporting technical group.

06/06/2007 Modifi cation of night-time departure path from runway 36L.


Air

The airport’s Air Quality Control Network (REDAIR) monitors air quality in the area surrounding the airport. This network, which was relocated in 2005 following studies carried out for the airport’s extension, is composed of three fi xed stations and one mobile unit that measures air quality in specifi c areas not covered by the fi xed network:

REDAIR 1 Station: fi xed station located near runways 15R and15L, next to Terminal 4 Satellite.

REDAIR 2 Station: fi xed station located on airport’s western edge near service road.

REDAIR 3 Station: fi xed station located near South Pier and opposite aprons R5-R6 on airport´s western end.

Mobile Unit: This was located in two state pavilions (old and new) over the course of 2007. In the fi rst semester it was located near aprons 5 and 6 (airport´s south zone), in the second semester in the new state pavilion (airport´s north zone).

REDAIR records the amounts of contaminants emitted into the area of infl uence of the airport’s operation areas, take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, as well as atmospheric emissions from other facilities, such as the cogene-ration plant that began operating in 2005.

The measuring stations have different analytical equipment and a meteorological substation.

Data obtained by analytical instruments are read by an acquisition, storage and data-transmission system (DAS). The analysers communicate with the DAS via serial ports and analogical outlets, storing this data or transmitting it in real time, upon request, to the control centre. The communications system between the stations and the control centre is conducted via optic fi bre.

The Control Centre processes data sent by the DAS and, via its local network, communicates the state of the network to the airport´s central maintenance system. Data is sent daily to the Community and Town Hall of Madrid.

16

Analytical equipment and meteorology

Data acquisition system

Data processing centre

Environmental divi-sion control centre


The network gathers data on the main parameters of atmospheric pollution:

The table below compares results in 2006 and 2007 with respect to legislative limits:

17

Particles in suspension PM10 y PM2.5 Sulphur dioxide - SO2

Nitrogen oxides – NO2/NOx Carbon monoxide - CO

Ozone - O3 Lead - Pb

Total hydrocarbons - TPH Benzene

NO2/ NOX Limit μg/ m3 REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3

Hourly limit for protection of human health

240Limit cannot be ex-ceeded more than

18 times a year.

Hourly limit was not exceeded.


Hourly limit was excee-ded 36 times.

230Limit cannot be ex-ceeded more than

18 times a year.



Hourly limit was excee-ded 89 times.

Annual limit for protection of human health

48

Annual limit was not exceeded.


Annual limit for the protection of human

health was exceeded 61

μg/ m3 .

46 Annual limit was not exceeded.


Annual limit for the protection of human

health was exceeded 58

μg/ m3 .

Annual limit for protection of ve-getation (NOX)

30

Annual average was 68.1 μg/ m3 ,

exceeding the limit.

Annual average

was 77.22 μg/ m3, exceeding the limit.

Annual average was

115.35 μg/ m3 exceeding the limit.

30

Annual average was 64 μg/ m3 ,

exceeding the limit.

Annual average

was 95 μg/ m3 , ex-ceeding the limit.

Annual average was 122

μg/ m3 , exceeding the limit.

Alert threshold

400Limit cannot be

exceeded for three consecutive hours.

Alert threshold was not exceeded.



400Limit cannot be





2007

20

06

2007

2006

200

7

20

06

2007

200

6

In accordance with RD 1073/2002 (1999/30/CE guidelines)


18

SO2 Limit μg/ m3 REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3


2006

350Limit cannot be

exceeded more than 24 times a year.

Limit was not excee-ded.



200

7

350Limit cannot be

exceded more than 24 times a year.




Daily limit for protection of human health

200

6

125Limit cannot be





200

7

125Limit cannot be





Annual limit for protection of vegetation

2006 20

Annual limit for protection of

vegetation was not exceeded.




vegetation was not exceeded

2007 20






vegetation was not exceeded

Alert threshold

200

6

500Limit cannot be





200

7

500Limit cannot be




Alert threshold was no t exceeded..



19

CO2

Limit μg/ m3 REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3


2006 10

Limit was not exceeded.

Limit was not

exceeded.

Limit was not

exceeded.

2007

10Limit was not

exceededLimit was not

exceeded. Limit was not

exceeded.


PbLimit

μg/ m3 REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3


2006 0.5




2007 0.5



Annual limit was not exceeded


BENZENELimit

μg/ m3REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3


2006 9


Annual limit was not exceeded..


2007 8

Annual limit was not exceeded..

Annual limit was not exceeded




20

PARTICLES (PM10) Limit μg/ m3 MOBILE UNIT

Daily limit for protection of human health

2006

50Limit cannot be exceeded more than

35 times a year.

Limit was exceeded 36 times, not reaching maximum limit.

2007

50Limit cannot be exceeded more than

35 times a year.

Limit was exceeded 32 times, not reaching maximum limit.


2006

36Annual limit for protection of human

health was not exceeded.

2007

32Annual limit for protection of human

health was not exceeded.


OZONE Limit μg/ m3 REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3

Threshold for informing com-

munity

2006

180 μg/ m3 for more than one

hour.

Threshold was not exceeded.



2007


hour.




Alert threshold for community

2006


hour.




2007


hour.






The annual limits of NOx for the protection of vegetation were exceeded in both 2006 and 2007 in REDAIR 1, 2 and 3, and the annual and hourly limits of NO2 for the protection of human health were exceeded in REDAIR 3. As can be seen in the graphs below, limits were exceeded in practically every month of the year, and are pronounced in most Madrid Community and Town Hall stations.

21

140 -

0 -

120 -

100 -

80 -

60 -

40 -

20 -

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n m

icro

gra

ms

/m3

Jan DecFeb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

E09: P. Luca Tena

E23: Alcalá (end)

E12: Pza M. Becerra

E26: Embajada Res. Dev.

Town Hall Network AverageREDAIR 3

E07: M. Salamanca

E27: Barajas

E25: Sta. Eugenia

COMPARATIVE EVOLUTION OF MONTHLY NO2 CONCENTRATIONSREDAIR 3-STATIONS OF MADRID TOWN HALL 2007

(Comparative data for Sta. Eugenia station was taken as of August)

In 2007 the airport conducted some actions included in the agreement signed with the Community of Madrid to improve air quality (such as offering effi cient driving lessons to airport employees with private vehicles, beginning a plan to replace GHE vehicles incorporating prototypes used by handling operators, conducting the initial phase of a model dispersing contaminants to the atmosphere, etc.)

In the upcoming 2008-2009 period, we will continue to conduct actions included in the plan to replace GHE vehi-cles, as well as draw up a model of dispersion of contaminants, which will help us determine the sources of pollu-tion at the airport and decide on possible actions to minimise them. We will also complete studies on energy-saving measures that we have been conducting up to the present time.

22


Jan DecFeb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

(Coslada station: No data available from Madrid Community of until June)

COMPARATIVE EVOLUTION OF MONTHLY NO2 CONCENTRATIONSREDAIR 3-STATIONS OF COMMUNITY OF MADRID 2007

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n m

icro

gra

ms

/m3

120 -

0 -

100 -

80 -

60 -

40 -

20 -

Alcorcón

Getafe

Redair 3

Alcobendas

Móstoles

Fuenlabrada

Alcalá de Henares

Torrejón de Ardoz

CosladaLeganés

Water

Wastewater

Madrid-Barajas Airport monitors the quality of wastewater that is discharged into the airport waterworks (SIS) by taking periodic samples at discharge points.

The graph below shows the evolution of oil and grease concentrations in the wastewater catchment tank of the airport´s T1, T2 and T3 terminals in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Effl uent coming from the town of Barajas and the cargo area showed an increased concentration of oil and grease at the terminals´ discharge point. However, the oil and grease content at this discharge point decreased markedly in 2007, and was well beneath the limit permitted by law (100mg/l).


23

EVOLUTION OF OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION 2004-2007 T1, 2, 3 SAMPLE POINT

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter

2004 101 34 30 99

2005 110 63 73 76

2006 1000 1000 83 35

2007 34 34 82 42.12

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n m

g/l

Due to the airport’s extension, there was an increase of discharge points to the municipal waterworks. There are now other discharge points in the following new terminal areas: North Terminal, South Terminal, Satellite building, Control Tower and the area occupied by the cogeneration plant, the waste transfer plant and the bilge treatment plant.

24


(*) The total Nitrogen limit was exceeded on some occasions at T4 North and South, the Control Tower and T4 Satellite, due to the nature of the effl uent generated in these facilities. Madrid Town Hall was informed of this situation.

Sample Points T4 North T4 South T4 Satellite Control Tower Limits (mg/l)

PH 9.28 8.95 9.0 7.88 6-10

Oil and grease

(mg/l)48 60.75 75 40 100

DQO (mgO2/l) 401.25 580 574.5 392.25 1750

DBO5 (mgO2/l) 257.5 386.25 332.5 245 1000

SS (mg/l) 426 522.75 409.25 129.25 1000

Total Nitrogen

(mg/l)146.08 (*) 125.99 (*) 139.55 (*) 130 (*) 125

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Oil and greasee DQO DBO5 SS Total Nitrogen

T4 North T4 South T4 Satellite Control Tower

QUARTERLY ANALYTICAL AVERAGES IN AIRPORT´S EXTENSION IN 2007


Surface Water

The airport has hydrocarbon separators and sand traps that treat water issuing from apron operation areas that could be carrying some type of contaminant before its discharge into the public waterworks. The Tajo Hydrographical Confederation’s runoff water authorisation that was granted to the airport includes the obliga-tion to test periodically a series of parameters to guarantee the qua-lity of effl uent.

With the airport´s extension, the number of HC separator plants (HSPs) was increased to 12 in 2006, and six new sand traps were installed.

With the aim of improving performance, the HSP termed Apron was replaced in 2007, and the airport plans to replace the HSP of remotes in 2008.

25


26

Runway 18L/36R Sand Trap 2 HSP Remotes

Location of HSPs at airport


The table below shows the results of tests conducted at surface water discharge points prior to the airport´s ex-tension:

All results were acceptable except for the sample taken at runway 15L/33R Sand trap Pumping Deposit in the 2nd

quarter, which exceeds the limit due to landslides caused by nearby construction work. A follow-up sample taken at the end of January in 2008 showed acceptable results.

The table below shows the results of tests conducted at new discharge points in 2006-2007:

27

ANNUAL AVERAGES OF QUARTERLY TESTS BY HC SEPARATORS 2004-2007

Parameters pH Oil and grease SS

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007

Limits 5.5-9.5 40 mg/l < 35 mg/l

North Zorreras 7.8 7.6 8.6 7.10 <0.2 <2 <20 10.13 10.1 8 <5 14

South Zorreras 8.3 7.7 8.0 7.10 <0.2 <2 <20 <7.5 <7.5 <6 <7 14

North Valdebebas 7.7 7.1 8.1 7.15 <0.2 <2 <20 7.6 7.6 <6 <6.5 9.5

South Valdebebas 7.9 7.7 8.0 7.10 <0.2 <2 <20 15.2 15.2 16.2 12.5 15.5

CELA Area 7.4 7.4 7.95 (*) <0.2 <2 <20 (*) 20 7.6 7 (*)

PIC Area 7 7.1 7.9 7.6 <0.2 <2 <20 1.53 16.2 7.8 9.5 13

Runway 36R Area 7.9 7.4 8.17 6.95 <0.2 <2 <20 12.03 <7.5 8.4 9 96 (**)

(*) HSP tests in the CELA area were not conducted in 2007, due to a lack of effl uent at the sample point because of construction work being carried out in the area.

(**) All results were acceptable except in the HSP test conducted in the 2nd quarter in the runway 36R area, which occasionally exceeded the limit for solids in suspension. A follow-up sample taken at the end of January in 2008 showed acceptable results.

ANNUAL AVERAGES OF QUARTERLY SAND TRAP TESTS 2006-2007

Parameters pH Oil and grease SS

Limits 5.5-9.5 40 mg/l <35 mg/l

Year 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007

HSP Apron 8.95 7.3 <20 0.92 14.5 17

HSP Remotes 7.75 7.15 <20 10.77 <8 10.5

Runway 18L/36R Sand trap 1 8.65 7.1 <20 10.16 <5.5 12

Runway 18L/36R Sand trap 2 8.35 7.05 <20 10.11 5 13.5

Runway 18L/36R Sand trap 3 8.45 7.15 <20 10.12 <8.5 8

Runway 18L/36R HSP Apron 7.75 7.65 <20 10.94 11 9

Runway 15L/33R Sand trap 1 7.8 8.6 <20 10.12 10 6

Runway 15L/33R Sand trap 2 8 8.65 <20 10.14 10 6

Runway 15L/33R Pumping Deposit 8.81 7.3 <20 10.23 <5 41.5

Runway 15L/33R HSP Apron 8.3 7.3 <20 10.11 6.5 5


28

TEST AVERAGES OF ALL HC SEPARATORS (HSPs) IN 2007

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/l)

Ph Oil and grease SS

North Zorreras

North Valdebebas

PIC area

HSP Apron

Runway 18L/36R HSP Apron

Runway 18/36R HSP No 1

South Zorreras

South Valdebebas

Runway end 36R

HSP Remotes

Runway 15L/33R HSP Apron

Runway 15L/33R HSP Pumping Deposit

29


TEST AVERAGES OF ALL SAND TRAPS IN 2007

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/l)

Ph Oil and grease SS

Runway 18L/36R Sand Trap 1

Runway 18/36R Sand Trap 3





Well Water

To control groundwater quality in aquifers located within the airport, the airport has a Strategic Environmental Control Network (RECA) which is divided up into two areas of operation: Zone I, covering the area occupied by terminals 1, 2, 3 and associated areas, and Zone II, covering the area occupied by the airport´s extension. The probe network in Zone I has been extended to in-clude the CLH´s old yard, which is partly controlled by the airport The control parameters selected for Zone l are those used for the type of activity conducted in the area (only airport activities):

Total hydrocarbons (TPHs). Total BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). PAH´s (naphthalene, acenaphtylene, pyrene, anthracene, etc.)

The probe network of Zone II, was monitored until February 2006 by the Barajas Plan, but has since become the airport’s responsibility. The control parameters accorded with CHT are related to activities conducted in the areas occupied by the airport´s extension:

Total hydrocarbons (TPHs). Oil and grease. Ammonium.

The frequency of testing and control parameters that are applied to both zones are those accor-ded with the Tajo Hydrographical Confederation (CHT) and the Community of Madrid. Regarding parameters and monitoring frequency, a modifi cation has been authorised that was approved by CHT on 14 August 2007 and that goes into effect in 2008.

30

Probe 18L-09

Probe 18L-03

The map below shows the location of probes in Zone II:

PROBE NETWORK IN ZONE II

31



The table below shows the results of quarterly analyses conducted in Zone I in 2007:

(* ) Exhaustive monitoring is being conducted to prevent hydrocarbon from shifting to other parts of the substratum.

The level of intervention of TPHs, BTEX and PAHs was exceeded in probe ID138 in Zone I because of the presence of hydrocarbon in free phase. This limit was also exceeded in probe ID49 in the fi rst quarter. However, since the limit was not exceeded in the second quarter, the former has been considered a passing instance of conta-mination, although the airport will continue monitoring evolution in 2008.

32

PROBE TPH´s (μgr/l) BTEX (μgr/l) PAH´s

Level of inter-

vention

(using Dutch

standards)

600 μgr/l Specifi c according to the composite Specifi c according to the composite

RECA Code 03/07 06/07 08/07 12/07 03/07 06/07 08/07 12/07 03/07 06/07 08/07 12/07

ID8-2 <40 <40 <40 <40 0.25 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -

ID14 <40 <40 <40 <40 <0.2 <0.2 0.21 <0.2 0.075 - - -

ID19 89 170 210 190 0.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.6 2.9 2.4 1.5

ID 20 <40 <40 <40 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 ** 0.034 - - -

ID29 <40 <40 58 <40 0.21 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.09 - - -

ID43 <40 <40 <40 45 0.37 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.069 0.017 - 0.2

ID49 <40 2500 65 430 <0.2 1800 620 27 0.18 4.4 0.048 0.21

ID65 <40 <40 <40 <40 0.29 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.04 - - 0.033

ID69 <40 <40 <40 <40 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.072 - - 0.05

ID98 <40 <40 <40 <40 0.24 0.31 <0.2 <0.2 0.067 - - 0.051

ID102 <40 <40 <40 <40 0.37 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -

ID138 Presence of HC in free phase (*) Presence of HC in free phase (*) Presence of HC in free phase (*)

ID146 <40 <40 <40 <40 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -

ID152 <40 <40 45 <40 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.14 - - 0.016

ID156 <40 <40 <40 <40 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.033 - - 0.04

ID159 <40 <40 <40 <40 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.028 - - 0.068

ID162 <40 230 52 <40 <0.2 22 <0.2 0.21 0.03 6.1 - 0.027

ID163 <40 <40 <40 <40 0.21 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.017 - - -

ID167 300 250 410 280 0.27 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.18

P7 <40 <40 <40 70 0.27 <0.2 <0.2 0.23 - - 0.057 0.18

P10 <40 51 <40 <40 0.57 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -


(**) In the case of ammonium, a very restrictive limit has been applied, which is that used to determine the potability of water. Notwithstanding, this contaminant has shown a marked decrease in probes near the dump in Arroyo de la Vega, thanks to a project called Confi nement of Contaminated Ground to an Isolated Cell that was carried out as of April 2007, in the second quarter of the year.

33

ZONE AQUIFER

PROBE TPHs (μgr/l) OIL AND GREASE AMMONIUM

Level of

intervention

(using Dutch

standards)

600 μgr/l 600 μgr/l 0.5 mg/l

06/07 12/07 06/07 12/07 06/07 12/07

Arroyo de la Vega area Quaternary

18L-01 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.21

18L-02 <40 <40 <50 130 <0.065 <0.065

18L-03 <40 <40 320 150 <0.065 <0.065

18R-04 <40 <40 59 71 2.1 2.3 (*)

18R-05 <40 <40 <50 90 0.22 0.33

18R-06 <40 <40 56 <50 0.32 0.1

18R-07 <40 <40 <50 <50 0.56 1.3

Tertiary18R-03 <40 <40 <50 83 <0.065 <0.065

18R-08 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

Arroyo de las Zorreras

area

Quaternary 18L-10 <40 <40 <50 88 <0.065 <0.065

Tertiary18L-09 <40 <40 <50 170 <0.065 <0.065

18R-02 <40 <40 <50 89 <0.065 0.099

West sector area

Quaternary NAT-07 <40 <40 <50 70 0.086 0.082

Tertiary

18R-01 140 <40 93 410 0.13 <0.065

NAT-01 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

NAT-02 <40 <40 <50 59 <0.065 <0.065

NAT-03 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.068

NAT-04 <40 <40 <50 61 <0.065 <0.065

NAT-05 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.72 (*)

NAT-06 <40 <40 57 <50 <0.065 0.11

NAT-08 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

<40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

The table below shows the results of quarterly analyses conducted in Zone II in 2007:

Central sector area

Quaternary15L-10 <40 <40 <50 <50 0.14 0.28

18L-08 <40 <40 <50 51 0.068 0.11

Tertiary

15L-09 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.091

SAT-02 <40 <40 <50 95 0.1 0.11

SAT-03 100 <40 96 92 0.23 0.12

East sector area

Quaternary

15L-07 <40 <40 <50 72 <0.065 0.17

15L-08 <40 <40 <50 <50 0.076 0.14

18L-05 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

18L-07 <40 <40 120 69 <0.065 <0.065

Tertiary18L-06 <40 <40 <50 58 <0.065 <0.065

SAT-01 <40 <40 <50 63 0.26 4.7 (*)

Southeast sector area

Quaternary

15L-01 <40 <40 <50 210 <0.065 <0.065

15L-03 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 <0.065

15L-04 <40 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.15

15L-05 <40 <40 <50 110 0.066 <0.065

15L-06 <40 <40 <50 79 0.49 0.26

Tertiary 15L-02 54 <40 <50 <50 <0.065 0.1


Waste

The numerous activities conducted at the airport generate large quantities of waste. Both hazardous and non-hazardous waste are handled by authorised transport and sanitation agents and in keeping with current legislation.

After the opening of the new terminal area (T4 and T4S) in 2006, more collection points were set up, and the waste transfer plant became operative. Moreover, a sanitation agent was hired to handle non-hazardous waste in the airport´s extension in 2006, a practice due to be extended to the entire airport in the future.

The airport had 8 Selective Waste Collection Points (WCPs) in 2007, which were distributed as follows:

Three WCPs in Terminals 1, 2 and 3, two of them on apron (airfi eld) and the third in the urbanised area (ground operations).

Five WCPs in the extension area, four on the fi rst fl oor of the Terminal Building (T4) and the fi fth on the fi rst fl oor of the Satellite building (T4S).

These collection points serve to receive, identify, classify, condition and temporarily store waste collected in different areas of the airport. There are containers for each type of waste, both hazardous and recyclable. The number of containers depends on the quantity of waste generated in each area. All containers are clearly identifi ed and labelled according to legislation in force. These collection points are not intended for radioactive material, explosives, infectious waste, or non-separated or unidentifi ed waste.

Waste Collection Points

34

TYPE OF WASTE ORIGIN

NO

N-H

AZA

RD

OU

S W

AST

E

•Plant refuse.•Scrap metal.•Plastic.•Wood.•Glass.•Paper and cardboard.•Rubble and earth. •Liquids and substances of similar consistency.•Perishable goods.•Tyres.•Remaining waste (waste that cannot be separated and is taken to the dump).

•Cleaning of terminals and airport accesses.

•Restaurants and concessionaires.

•Offi ces.

•Maintenance of facilities and landscaped areas.

•Collection at passenger check points where fl ight safety laws are applied.

HA

ZAR

DO

US

WA

STE

•Electrical and electronic equipment.•Impregnated rags and materials.•Contaminated containers.•Used oil.•Oil fi ltres.•Lead batteries.•Aerosol sprays.•Used fl uorescent lights.•Healthcare waste.•Water with hydrocarbons.

•Maintenance of terminals, vehicles, facilities, electrical power stations, etc.

•Cleaning of spillage treatment facilities (grease separators, etc.).

•Training of fi re-extinguishing service.

•Healthcare service.


As of 2006, the airport has had a waste transfer plant and a clean point for solid waste. The plant, a centre that stores waste, contains two separate areas:

A transfer area made up of two levels in which the two fractions comprising solid urban waste (organic was-te and light packaging) are selectively compressed in closed metal vats.

An area adapted to function as a collection and recycling centre, or clean point, located in different parts of the urbanised area and geared to the selective collection and recovery of different types of waste.

The station underwent remodelling in 2007 to improve performance and consequently separation of waste.

35

The following pie charts shows waste that was separated in 2007:

PERCENTAGES OF SEPARATED NHW IN 2007 (t)

Paper and cardboard54.50%

Containers17.12%

Plant refuse12.65%

Scrap metal6.94%Tyres

0.63%Wood3.14%

Glass5.01%


GENERACIÓN DE RESIDUOS NO PELIGROSOS VALORIZADOS DURANTE LOS AÑOS 2004-2007 (t)

36

Water+HC79.247%

Ni-Cd batteries0.106%

Aerosol5.802%

Solvent0.087%

Lead batteries2.090%

Antifreeze1.001%

Oil fi lters0.255%

Fluorescent lights1.906%

Contaminated containers0.526%

Used oil0.891%

Impregnated rags3.542%

Electrical equipment4.277%

Healthcare waste0.271%

PERCENTAGES OF SEPARATED HW IN 2007 (t-)

GENERATION OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE 2004-2007

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Paper and Containers Plant refuse Scrap metal Glass Wood Tyres cardboard

2004 51.96 202.00 67.95 31.19 10.51 14.62 5.74

2005

2006

2007

750.56 361.18 62.39 25.15 30.66 13.20 9.12

814.08 34.44 60.10 28.23 30.62 17.78 4.64

422.94 132.885 98.20 53.86 38.88 24.40 4.90

Tm

As can be seen in the graph above, there was a general increase in the separation of non-hazardous waste in 2007.


(*) Liquids and substances of similar consistency: this is waste that began to be generated in 2007 since the enforcement of new safety laws regarding the transport of liquid in carry-on luggage (CE Nº1546/2006 Rule).

There is no data available on perishable waste for previous years.

The decrease in the remaining fraction (non-separated waste) in 2007 despite the notable increase in passengers that year was due to improved separation of waste.

Perishable goods began to be handled by the airport´s sanitation agent in 2007.

The increase in some hazardous waste in 2007 was due mainly to the increase in the number of passengers which in turn produced an increase in airport activity. Healthcare waste generated by healthcare services increased by 8.36%; electrical equipment increased by 35% due to the replacement of equipment. Some waste generated by maintenance of facilities increased due to the remodelling of old terminals as well as the maintenance of the new terminals that opened in 2006 and did not require maintenance until 2007, as was the case with fl uorescent lights, which increased by 783%.

Throughout 2007, the airport continued to encourage companies to manage their own waste as well as to minimise the dumping of waste on airport premises through continual vigilance.

37

GENERATION OF NON-RECOVERABLE WASTE 2004-2007

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

Remaining Liquids & subst Perishable goods fraction of similar consis*

2004 6,742.00 0.00 0.00

2005 7,226.00 0.00 0.00

2006 11,490.68 0.00 0.00

2007 10,588.45 608.26 68.92

Ton

s

GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 2004-2007

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Healthca

re w

aste

Electr equipment

Impre

gnated ra

gs

Used oil

Contaminate

d conta

iners

Fluore

scent l

ights

Oil fi lt

res

Antifre

eze

Lead batte

ries

Solve

nt

Ni-cd batte

ries

2004 2005 2006 2007


As can be seen in the graph above, there was a marked decrease in the generation of water with hydrocar-bons in 2007 with respect to 2006 (72.8%) due to scarce rainfall in 2007.

38

GENERATION OF WATER WITH HC 2004-2007 (t)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0Water+HC

2004 695.04

2005 608.24

2006 1,268,50

2007 345.04

Tm

Consumption

Another main environmental aspect at the airport is the consumption of natural resources, given that water, electricity, fuel, etc., are consumed in order to meet the demand for services provided at the airport.

The graph shows the consumption of drinking water in the past years.

Drinking water (m3)

CONSUMPTION OF DRINKING WATER 2004-2007

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0 2004 2005 2006 2007


Consumption of drinking water showed a marked increase in 2007 with respect to 2006, due to the increase in the number of passengers this past year, the greater number of services at the new security checks, and construction work that was carried out during 2007. However, the ratio of litres/nº of passengers shows that there was a higher consumption of water per passenger in 2006 than in 2007. Nevertheless, the airport is planning to conduct an audit to optimise water consumption in 2008.

The airport also made a request to the Madrid Town Hall in 2007 to connect the airport to the regenerated water network. This water would be used for the irrigation of landscaped areas and the washing down of apron areas.

The following graph shows the consumption of well water over the past four years. This water is used to irrigate the airport´s landscaped areas:

• Consumption is higher in summer months, due to greater frequency of irrigation.

• Construction work on the “Troncal” (access road to the airport) was carried out in 2003 and 2004, resulting in a reduction of vegetated areas in the construction area and a decrease in the consumption of water with respect to 2002. In 2005, after this work was completed, water consumption increased.

• Madrid Town Hall set restrictions on irrigation in 2006 which, combined with increased precipitation during the same year (practically double that of the previous year), resulted in a decrease in consumption during this period.

• A drip irrigation system was installed in the new green areas, and irrigation is conducted at times of least evapotranspiration.

• The consumption of well water for the irrigation of landscaped areas decreased in 2007, despite the scarce rainfall during this year. This was because the system for extracting well water was out of order during the months of highest consumption (summer time) and so water from the mains was used.

39

CONSUMPTION OF DRINKING WATER

(litres/ nº passengers)

2004 2005 2006 2007

19.50 23.28 28.10 27.24


CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY 2004-2007

The consumption of electric energy at the airport is due mainly to the operation of the airport´s air climatisation facilities and lighting systems, the latter applying to terminal buildings and urbanised areas , as well as apron areas. The airport´s use of a cogeneration plant that takes advantage of residual heat is a main energy-saving measure.

The airport consumed 333,398,548 Kwh of electric energy in 2007, of which 213,769,593 Kwh were generated by the cogeneration plant. The increase in consumption this past year with respect to 2006 was not very signifi cant, given that it did not exceed 6%. Notwithstanding, this increase is due mainly to the remodelling of terminals T1 and T2, the adaptation of eight new aircraft stationing posts in the north apron and the opening of the state pavillion.

Meanwhile, the airport carried out the following energy-saving measures in 2007:

• Electric lighting was modifi ed in terminals T4 and T4 Satellite so ignition is adapted to areas and lighting is controlled by the SG.

• During the remodelling of terminals T1 and T2, lighting was installed using lamps of lower consumption than the existing ones.

• Circuits were adapted in runway lights to keep taxiing roads associated with the operative confi guration in service. On taxiing roads of runway 15R/33L lights that used 100-, 65- and 45-watt lightbulbs were replaced by new ones with 40-watt lightbulbs.

• The runway lighting control system was also adapted so as to automatically switch off apron lighting on ramps 5 and 6 from 11 pm to 7 am.

• Automatic control of lighting, already used in the rest of the airport, was implemented in the extension of terminal T4´s north ramp.

40

CONSUMPTION OF WELL WATER FOR IRRIGATION 2004-2007

(*)In November 2005 water was cut off due to a temporary failure. Likewise, water was cut off in the summer of 2007 due to a failure in the well pump

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

2004 2005 2006 2007


m3

2004 Total consumption of electric energy 126.46 Gw h





Among the energy-saving measures planned for 2008 is the remodelling of terminal T2, which will include new software for automatic control of lighting in the terminal.

The consumption of vehicle fuel (both diesel and petrol) showed a decrease of 21.74% in 2007 with respect to 2006, due to the fact that many vehicles were not 100% operative in 2007, since they were by then over 10 years old. Mo-reover, the control system employed in 2007—using Soldred cards—is more effi cient than the system used in former years, apart from which 11 new vehicles that operate with natural gas were incorporated this year.

This decrease can be seen in the graph below, which shows the ratio of vehicle fuel consumption in litres consumed per vehicle. As in previous years, the airport continued to replace petrol-powered vehicles with vehicles that run on diesel, as well as incorporating vehicles that run on natural gas.

41

CONSUMPTION OF VEHICLE FUEL 2004-2007

2004 2005 2006 2007

Nº vehicles 111 124 121 167

Fuel (L) 2004 2005 2006 2007

Petrol 39,443 36,706 75,338 68,755.79

Diesel 113,522 115,234 174,839 127,029.04

CONSUMPTION OF FUEL (LITRES / VEHICLE) 2004-2007

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 2004 2005 2006 2007


Flora

Measures Taken Within the Airport Grounds

The pine woods area, located between the airfi eld and the lake, is the most notable of the airport´s plant ecosystems because of its extension and complexity. Occupying a surface area of 90 hectares, it houses the varieties Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea), Aleppo Pine (Pinus halepensis) and Arizona Cypress (Cupressus arizonica).

Among the woodland maintenance tasks carried out in 2007 were: pruning, removal of dry trees, phytosanitary treatment against pine processionary, clearing of undergrowth and thinning.

Once the work on the airport´s extension was completed, a series of compensatory measures was taken to integrate the landscape, recover vegetation along river banks, recreate natural habitats, and other measures included in the fi fth and ninth clauses of DIA 01.

Following the airport´s study on soil description, and in compliance with the fi rst clause of DIA 2001 regarding the protection of the hydrological and hydrogeological system, the airport carried out the project Confi nement of contaminated soil in an isolated cell in 2007. This was followed by a restoration of the environment by planting typical riverbank species both in the cell area and in areas that had contained contaminated soil.

Among the species planted were Cocksfoot, Wall Barley, Red Clover, Alfalfa and Bermuda Grass, as well as trees and bushes of the Salix, Populus and Fraxinus genres.

42

Measures Taken Outside the Airport Grounds

As part of the compensatory measures associated with the airport´s extension (Clause 9, DIA 01), the following actions were carried out in 2007:

Beginning of the maintenance phase of the project Leafy Tree Reforestation in the Soto de la Heredad esta-te. This included irrigation, weeding, terracing, sowing and reforestation.

Reforestation was carried out and the maintenance phase begun in the areas corresponding to the following projects: Recovery of vegetated areas on the banks of Arroyo de la Galga stream in Talamanca de Jarama and Valdetorres de Jarama and Recovery of vegetated areas to restore the ecosystem of the river Jarama´s right bank between Belvis del Jarama and San Fernando bridge. The table below shows the species that were planted in each area:


43

Arroyo de la Galga stream Right bank of Jarama river

White Willow (Salix alba)White Poplar (Populus alba)Black Poplar (Populus nigra)Narrow-leafed Ash (Fraxinus angustifolia)Almond tree (Prunus amigdalus)Common Fig (Ficus carica)

White Willow (Salix alba)White Poplar (Populus alba)Black Poplar (Populus nigra)Narrow-leafed Ash (Fraxinus angustifolia)


Fauna

The airport contains various ecosystems, which have been conserved and maintained. These ecosystems offer the conditions necessary for various bird, mammal, insect and reptile species to inhabit these areas and carry out the functions pertaining to their ecological niche.

The airport´s main habitats are:

1.- Pine woods area. 2.- Marshy areas. 3.- Building and hangar areas. 4.- Fruit tree area. 5.- Grassy areas. 6.- Restored landscaped areas.

The airport has had a Fauna Control Service since 1970 in order to make the presence of fauna within the airport grounds compatible with aeronautical safety measures and minimise the risk of impact between birds and aircraft. The service´s main function is to establish an element of danger that is easily identifi ed by birds, thus neutralising the airport´s possible appeal

and dissuading birds from fl ying over problematic areas. This has considerably decreased the settling and nesting of species that could prove dangerous near the airport´s runways. In order to achieve this, the airport has 60 falcons that have been raised in captivity and specially trained by a team of experienced falconers. When birds detect the presence of a nearby predator (falcon), they abandon the area immediately, thus avoiding the random elimination of individual birds. The falcons fl y over the airport runways 365 days a year during daylight hours. Apart from birds of prey, the airport uses other means of dissuasion such as cannons that periodically emit bangs in strategic areas to prevent bird populations from settling in areas of risk for air navigation.

Because the airport contains different ecotones (transition areas between different ecosystems), it is frequented by a large number of species. Using the data on bird movements obtained in 2007, and applying these to inter-nationally-used models, the airport has classifi ed species in terms of the level of danger they present. To do this, two factors have been taken into account: the degree of probability of a collision between aircraft and birds —because of their frequency of fl ight or presence in the area—and the severity of the possible impact, which depends on the body mass of the species in question. The results obtained are shown in the table below:

44


45

Seve

rity

of

Imp

act

PROBABILITY OF IMPACT

Ver

y lo

w

Very high High Medium Low Very low

Eurasian Eagle-owlGriffon Vulture

White Stork

Bonelli´s EagleGolden eagle

Greylag Goose, Great Bustard, Eurasian Black Vulture, European Shag, Common

Crane

Low

Rock PigeonWood PigeonStock Pigeon

Herring GullCommon Buzzard

MallardCattle Egret

Grey HeronBlack KiteRed Kite

Little Bustard

Booted Eagle, Short-toed Eagle, Osprey, Montagu´s Harrier, Western Marsh Ha-rrier, Stone Curlew, Gadwall, Goshawk, Garganey, Eurasian Woodcock, Eurasian Coot, Little Egret, Lesser Black-backed

Gull, Peregrine Falcon, Barn Owl, Black-crowned Night Heron, Northern Sho-veler, Red-legged Partridge, Common Moorhen, Common Pochard, Tufted

duck

Med

ium

Common Kestrel Northern LapwingEuropean Magpie

Eurasian Hobby, Long-eared Owl, Eurasian Golden Plover, Great Spotted Cuckoo, Merlin, Sparrowhawk, Black-

headed gull, Jackdaw, Little Owl, Green Woodpecker, Turtledove, Eurasian

Collared Dove

Hig

h Spotless Starling

European Bee-eater, Hoopoe, Great Grey Shrike, Common Scops Owl,

Calandra Lark, European Roller, Lesser Kestrel, Nightjar, Red-necked Nightjar, Black-winged Stilt, Common Cuckoo,

White Wagtail, Blackbird, Golden Oriole, Mistle Thrush, Song Thrush,

Fieldfare

Ver

y h

igh

Barn swallowCommon swift

Crested Lark

Woodchat Shrike, Lark, House Martin, Meadow Pipit, Rock Bunting, Reed Bun-ting, Cirl Bunting, House Sparrow, Rock

Sparrow, Spanish Sparrow, European Goldfi nch, Wagtail, Eurasian Siskin, Lin-net, Brambling, Chaffi nch, Woodlark,

European Serin, Greenfi nch

High-danger species Medium-danger species Low-danger species


Apart from the corrective actions conducted by the Fauna Control Service, a series of preventive measures have been taken with similar objectives. As of March, periodic mowing has been carried out on all grassy areas within the airport grounds, giving priority to areas between runways and taxiing roads. This is being done to prevent meadow species from bearing grain and so attracting birds into the area. Also, with the collaboration of forest rangers from the State Environmental Offi ce, eggs were removed from a Common Buzzard´s nest in the airport´s immediate environs so as to prevent the fl ight of baby chicks, still unadept at fl ying, in areas that could affect aeronautical safety.

Moreover, as part of the compensatory measures associated with the airport´s extension (Clause 9, DIA 01), the airport continued in 2007 to manage the Wild Fauna and Flora Recovery Centre. This will be handed over to the Community of Madrid once the remodelling of the airport is completed.

Evaluation of Environmental Aspects

Before introducing an Environmental Management System (EMS), environmental aspects associated with airport activities and services need to be identifi ed.

Once identifi ed, environmental aspects are evaluated in order to set objectives for improvement. Representative indicators are used to evaluate the signifi cance of each aspect. A reference amount is established for each aspect, thus allowing us to determine if the aspect is signifi cant or not, based on whether its impact on the environment has increased or decreased. This reference amount may be a legal limit, quantities referring to a specifi c time period, etc.

The airport´s most signifi cant environmental aspects are the noise produced by airport activities, atmospheric emissions of contaminants caused by landing and take-off operations, and the movement of vehicles on apron (both indirect aspects).

46

The following are the main aspects that have been identifi ed and evaluated:


47

ENVIRONMENTAL

ASPECT INDICATOR 2004 EVALUATION 2005 EVALUATION 2006 EVALUATION 2007 EVALUATION

Noise during

take-off and landing

operations

Leq day 65 dBA

Leq night 55 dBASignifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Emissions from boilers 95% of the most un-

favourable parameter

according to Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Emissions from aircraft

during take-off and

landing operations

95% of the most unfa-

vourable parameter ac-

cording to legislation

Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Emissions

from Aena vehicle

movements



cording to legislationSignifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Not signifi cant

Emissions

from electrogen

groups

Operating

time <

5% of airport

operating time

Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant

Emissions

from SEI drills litres of fuel/ tes Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant

Paper/ cardboard kg/ employee Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant Not signifi cant

Glass kg/ employee Not signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

(*)This is waste that began to be generated in 2007 because of the introduction of new safety regulations for the transport of liquids in carry-on luggage (CE Nº1546/2006).


48

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

INDICATOR 2004 EVALUATION 2005 EVALUATION 2006 EVALUATION 2007 EVALUATION

Non-assessable

wastekg/ passenger Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Tyres kg/ vehicle Not Signifi cant Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Bulky waste m3/employee Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Scrap metal kg/employee Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Plant refuse kg/ Hectare Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Toner unit/ employee Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Containers kg/ passenger Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Liquids and subs-

tances of similar

consistency

kg/ passenger This began to be generated in 2007 (*) Not Signifi cant

Empty containers

that contained HW kg/ employee Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Fluorescent lights kg/ m2 of installation Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Oil fi lters kg/ vehicle Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Used oillitres/ employee Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Water/hydrocarbon

mix kg/ operation Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Impregnated rags

and materials kg/ operation Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Healthcare waste litres/ passenger Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Lead batteries kg/ vehicle Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Signifi cant

Solvent kg/ vehicle Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Monitors kg/ employee Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Antifreeze kg/ vehicle --- --- Signifi cant Signifi cant

Ni-Cd batteries kg/ vehicle --- --- --- Signifi cant


49

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT INDICATOR 2004 EVALUATION 2005 EVALUATION 2006 EVALUATION 2007 EVALUATION

Discharge of wastewater

into catchment tank (End of

line)




Not Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant


into catchment tank (Fecal

plot)




--- --- Not Signifi cant ---


into catchment tank (T4

North)




--- --- Signifi cant Signifi cant


into catchment tank (T4

Satellite)




--- --- Not Signifi cant Signifi cant


into catchment tank (T4 South)




--- --- Signifi cant Signifi cant


into catchment tank (Control

Tower)




--- --- Not Signifi cant Signifi cant


into catchment tank (SEI treat-

ment plant)




--- --- --- Signifi cant

Runoff water

from airport

(Runway end 36R)




Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Runoff water

from airport (Runway

15L-33R Pumping Deposit)




--- --- Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Runoff water


15L-33R

Sand Trap 1)





Runoff water


15L-33R

Sand Trap 2)





Runoff water


15L-33R Apron)





Runoff water


18L-36R

Sand Trap 1)





Runoff water


18L-36R

Sand Trap 2)






50

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTINDICATOR 2004 EVALUATION 2005 EVALUATION 2006 EVALUATION 2007 EVALUATION

Runoff water


18L-36R

Sand Trap 3)





Runoff water


18L-36R HSP

Apron)





Runoff water


18L-36R HSP 1)





Runoff water

from airport (HSP

Apron)





Runoff water

from airport (HSP

Remotes)





Runoff water

from airport (HSP

PIC Area)





Runoff water

from airport

(North Valdebebas)





Runoff water

from airport

(South Valdebebas)





Runoff water

from airport (CELA

Area)




Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant ---

Runoff water

from airport (HSP

North Zorreras)





Runoff water

from airport (HSP

South Zorreras)





Runoff water

from airport

(T4 Passenger

car park)





Runoff water

from airport

(T4 Taxi ranks)






Potential Aspects

This section deals with possible emergency situations that arise and have a possible impact on the environ-ment.

Potential aspects are evaluated according to the follo-wing parameters:

• Magnitude of impact.• Probability of occurrence.

The table below shows the signifi cance of each aspect. An aspect´s signifi cance is determined by virtue of the total score, which is obtained from the different varia-bles applied to each type of aspect.

51

ENVIRONMENTAL


Runoff water

from airport

(T4 Employee

car park P11)





Consumption of

electric energy

kw/ passengerNot Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

kw/ m2 of facility

Consumption of

drinking water

m3/ passengerNot Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Consumption of

boiler fuel

litres/ passengerNot Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Consumption of paper kg/ employeeSignifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Consumption of

fuel by Aena

diesel vehicles

litres/ vehicleSignifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Consumption of

fuel by Aena

petrol vehicles

litres/ vehicle Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Consumption of

well water

m3/ m2 irrigable surface

area Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant


52

ENVIRONMENTAL


Soil contamination

due to breakage of fuel

tanks

Probability

Magnitude Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant

Soil contamination

due to spills of hazardous

substances

Probability

Magnitude Noe Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Signifi cant

Soil contamination due

to breakage of

wastewater catchment

tanks

Probability


Soil contamination due

to breakage of hydrant

systems

Probability


Water contamination

due to breakage of fuel

tanks

Probability


Water contamination

due to spills of hazardous

substances

Probability


Water contamination

due to breakage of

wastewater catchment

tanks

Probability


Uncontrolled spills due

to fi re

Probability

Magnitude Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

Uncontrolled spills due to

air accident

Probability


Uncontrolled emissions

due to fi re

Probability


Uncontrolled emissions

due to air accident

Probability


Proliferation and

spreading

of Legionnaire´s disease

Probability


Generation of waste due

to fi re

Probability


Generation of waste due

to air accident

Probability


Emissions of substances

that deplete the ozone

layer

Probability

Magnitude Not Signifi cant Not Signifi cant Signifi cant Signifi cant

SERCOM (Company Control Service)

SERCOM, the Environmental Control of Companies service, was created in 2001 during the time that the airport´s Environmental Management System was being introduced and certifi ed in accordance with UNE-EN ISO 14001 international guidelines. It was set up so that Madrid-Barajas Airport could monitor the environmental practices of all companies conducting activities on the airport´s premises, and ensure they followed the principles laid out in these guidelines. SERCOM established a work methodology in 2001, initiating contact with all companies operating at the airport to start an environmental control of their activities. Currently, all companies operating at the airport are monitored. This includes both companies that have always operated at the airport (such as some airlines) and recently-licensed companies-comprising a total of over 180 companies.

SERCOM’s work method is defi ned in the PG-MA-08 Company Control procedures, and applies to all company activities and services that are conducted at the airport (contractors, concessionaires, and entities with any other contractual relationship) that could have an impact on the environment and over which controls can be exercised. The procedures establish the guidelines that companies are required to know and follow in order to perform their activities within a framework of correct environmental management , as well as the methodology used by SERCOM in its monitoring.

The table below outlines SERCOM´s main functions:

53

SERCOM´S FUNCTIONS

1. Ensure that all companies at the airport:

know Madrid-Barajas Airport´s Environmental Policy, as well as the procedures that are applicable to them.

comply with existing environmental legislation.

carry out good environmental practices.

minimise any impact their activities may have on the environ-ment.

2. Sensitise workers by way of:

periodic contact with company managers.

periodic monitoring of activities and facilities.

distribution of Best Practices Manuals, posters promoting envi-ronmental awareness, etc.

organisation of day seminars on environmental awareness.

3.- Monitor centralised and decentralised fi les, as well as those that do not follow the normal contractual procedures. Oversee environmental documentation required by environmental clauses in the prescribed technical specifi cations (Environmental Vigilance Plan and Waste Management Plan).


54

54

SERCOM´s methodology is summarised in the fl ow chart below:

AENA

CENTRAL OFFICES“La Piovera”

INTRANETECONOMIC

ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT

Centralised fi les

list of fi les assignedfi ling tables

(list of fi les assigned)Remit PVA and PGR

Centralised fi leCompanies Other ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Decentralised fi les Decentralised fi les

MADRID-BARAJASAIRPORT

SERCOM

Rev.Mensual

Rev.Mensual

Request PVA and PGRCentralised fi le

Request PVA and PGRCentralised fi le

PVA DATABASE

Communication PVA and PGR approval after evaluation

MA-PG-08Is applicable

Environmentaldiagnosis

CLOSED

MA-PG-08is not applicable

InternalCommunication

PVA and PGR Approval

SERCOM keeps companies informed of Aena´s environmental policy and the procedures that they need to apply It also checks that companies perform their activities in a framework of correct environmental management, and if not, identifi es deviations, non-compliances or makes other observations regarding environmental issues.

Below is a graph of non-compliances detected in 2006 and 2007.

Most non-compliances detected in 2007 were in activities conducted by airline companies (maintenance of ground equipment and aircraft) and construction companies (during the execution of work carried out at the airport over the course of the year), followed by activities by handling companies. This differs from to 2006, in which the fi rst place was held by airline companies, followed by shops, restaurants and catering companies.

OTHER

AIRLINE COMPANIES

HANDLING

SHOPS, RESTAURANTS & CATERING

PETROL STATIONS

CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

0 2 4 6

(*Other: SAMPOL, company managing the cogeneration plant)


55

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2006 2007



As can be seen in the graphs below, the highest percentage of non-compliances detected was related to “Handling of waste” and, above all, the inadequate separation of waste. Percentages in 2007 did not vary signifi cantly from those of 2005 and 2006 regarding the handling of waste, where this accounted for 66% and 60% of non-compliances respectively.

56

Handling of waste

Leakage in facilities

Documentation

Spills

2007

2006

21%3%

44%

32%

15% 4% 15%

66%


OFIMA (Environmental Service and Information Offi ce) is the part of the airport´s Environmental Division that handles complaints and requests for information regarding noise and other environmental issues.

It records and analyses all complaints received by the automated telephone answering service, mail, e-mail, and telephone so as to gather all the data necessary to respond to the person who fi led the complaint. The main motives for complaints are possible non-fulfi llment of AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) procedures, modifi cations of routes and changes in the airport´s operative layout, as well as requests for data on noise.

The graph below shows the evolution of complaints over the past four years.

57

2007 2006 2005 2004

3,719

6,193

5,377

1,328

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 2004-2007

A total of 3,719 complaints were received and registered in 2007. This volume of complaints is 1.67 times less than that registered in 2006, 1.45 times less than 2005, and 2.84 times greater than the complaints registered in 2004. One of the reasons for the decrease in complaints was the decrease in the number of operating hours in the south confi guration in 2007 with respect to previous years (6.8% less with respect to 2005 and 34.7% less with respect to 2006).

The graph below shows the monthly evolution of complaints over the past four years. Also, as can be seen in the graph, February was the month with the most complaints in 2007.

MONTHLY EVOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS 2004-2007

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2004 2005 2006 2007



The motives for complaints are varied, although two factors, when they are present, generally make the number of complaints either increase or decrease:

Modifi cation or increase of routes. The main changes were:

The modifi cation of routes that went into effect in July 2005.

The opening of the new T4 terminal in February 2006.

The incorporation of the new TMA in late September 2006 and the progressive distribution of fl ights.

The change in the night departure path in June 2007 (switching from runway 36R to runway 36L).

The opening of the airport´s south confi guration:

Whenever this form of airport operations is introduced, the number of complaints increases. In 2006 this confi guration was most used in Octo-ber, while in 2007, February, the second-busiest month in 2007 in terms of hours of use of the south confi guration, was the month with the most complaints.

58


59

Complaints Requests for informationComplaints with requests for information Thank you´sRequest for information and thank you´s Other

3.50%

4.06% 0.24% 0.11%0.20%

91.88%

The graph below shows the breakdown of entries in OFIMA in 2007.

The table below shows the monthly breakdown of entries:

ENTRIES 2007 Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Complaints 3,417 246 446 384 322 210 337 399 311 270 259 122 111

Requests for information 130 16 18 14 5 11 10 6 1 12 12 10 15

Complaints and requests for information

151 13 12 7 10 11 12 12 7 18 25 16 8

Thank you´s 9 2 - - 2 - - 2 1 - 2 - -

Thank you´s and requests for information

4 3 - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Other 8 2 2 1 3 - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 3,719 282 478 406 343 232 359 419 320 300 298 148 134


Each entry can have various motives. Thus 3,058 complaints were fi led in 2007 regarding possible overfl ights, 497 regarding disturbances due to noise in general, 33 regarding noise on apron, nine regarding odours, one regarding air pollution and 226 refl ecting different motives (consultations about noise corridors and other requests for information).

The graph below shows the percentage that each motive for complaint represents of the total.

Noise due to supposed overfl ightNoise on apronNoise in generalOdours, air pollution and wasteVarious

The following pie charts show the percentage of complaints handled in the past four years,broken down intomu-nicipalities.

Breakdown of complaints by municipality. 2004-2007

4%8% 29%

59%

Algete

San Sebastián de los Reyes

Madrid

Others

61%

2% 5%32%

Algete

San Sebastián de los Reyes

Madrid

Others

60

11.6%

0.9%

0.3%6%

81.2%

BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINTS BY MOTIVE 2007

BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINTS 2004

BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINTS 2005

San Sebastián de los Reyes Algete Paracuellos Madrid Tres Cantos San FernandoTorrejón de Ardoz El Molar OtherUnknown

2,41%

2,06%

9,67%

2,64%

7,00%1,14% 5,80%

1,24%29,00%

39,04%

BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINTS. 2006


Algete Paracuellos TorrejónSan Fernado Madrid Tres CantosSan Sebastián de los Reyes Unknown Other

BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINTS. 2007

18,15%

6,56%3,39%

1,88%10,30%

26,06%

20,30%

1,88%11,48%

61

The charts for 2006 and 2007 include complaints by municipalities not affected in previous years. This is due to the opening of Terminal T4 on 5 February 2006, and the incorporation of Madrid-Barajas Airport´s new air space (TMA) on 28 September and the subsequent gradual distribution of fl ights over four runways.

Complaints also fl uctuated in 2007, following the mobilisation campaigns of affected neighbouring communities. Algete, San Sebastián de los Reyes and Tres Cantos were the municipalities that fi led the greatest number of com-plaints, followed by Torrejón, San Fernando de Henares, Paracuellos de Jarama and Madrid. The evolution of com-plaints by residential areas within these municipalities is described below:

• Algete: The residential area where most complaints were fi led was Santo Domingo (58%), followed by North Prado (24.77%) and Algete village (17.23%). Complaints rose between January and June, after which they decreased considerably until December.

• San Sebastián de los Reyes: The residential areas that fi led the most complaints in this municipality were Fuente del Fresno and Dehesa Vieja. April was the month with the greatest number of complaints.

• Tres Cantos: The residential areas that fi led the most complaints was Soto de Viñuelas. The month with the greatest number of complaints was January, after which complaints decreased progressively until August, rose again in September, and then fell again.

• Torrejón de Ardoz: Complaints in this municipality reached a peak in February and July, coinciding with the increase in activity in the airport´s southern confi guration, which registered maximum levels in February, June and July. The residential area that fi led the most complaints was Los Fresnos (located southwest of the airport).

• San Fernando de Henares: Complaints in this municipality followed the same trend as in Torrejón, al-though the volume of complaints was 1.75 times less than that of Torrejón.

• Paracuellos de Jarama: As occurred in the former two municipalities, complaints showed a distinct corre-lation to activity at the airport´s southern confi guration. As was the case with Torrejón de Ardoz and San Fernando de Henares, complaints reached a peak in this municipality in February.

• Madrid: The number of complaints fi led in the city of Madrid in 2007 was 5.8 complaints per month. The maximum number of complaints were fi led in February and September, and the minimum in December. The area that fi led the most complaints was the Embajada district.


62

Future projects

The extension of Madrid-Barajas Airport included more and improved facilities to control and minimise contamination of the environment (new HC separator plants, sand traps and the replacement and upgrading of existing remote HSPs); extension of the well water control network, relocation and extension of the SIRMA and REDAIR networks, etc.). Next year we plan to complete this process with the following actions:

Optimising the performance of the waste transfer plant, by unifying the handling of non-hazardous waste by the airport´s sanita-tion agent and improving the percentage of waste that is separated.

Opening the bilge treatment plant, which was in the testing phase in 2007. This will treat bilge water from aircraft to improve its quality before its discharge into the municipal waterworks.

Replacing of the apron HSP.

As part of the compensatory measures set forth in the Declaration of the Environmental Impact Study of 2001 (DIA 01), the airport conducted various actions in 2007 to ensure the conservation of LIC (Place of Communal Interest) values and the global

coherence of the Natura 200 network. The main measures taken were:

Reforestation and maintenance of the restoration formerly conducted on the banks of Arroyo de la Galga stream in the municipalities of Talamanca del Jarama and Valdetorres del Jarama, and on the Jarama River´s right bank between Belvis del Jarama and San Fernando bridge.

Maintenance of the leafy tree reforestation carried out on the grounds of Soto de la Heredad estate.

Construction of a fauna recovery centre in Soto de Viñuelas (Tres Cantos). This building will treat native species, and be equipped with laboratories, operating rooms, recovery rooms, observatories, aviary fl ight cages for birds and facilities for reptiles and amphibians, etc. It will be managed by the Community of Madrid.

Regarding measures we have taken to minimise the impact of airport activity on the surrounding area, the airport began incorporating P-RNAV routes in 2007 and reduced the number of operations by marginally compliant aircraft. We have also begun to charge a noise tax depending on type of aircraft and time of operation.In coming years we will continue carrying out the actions outlined in the agreement between the Community of Madrid and Aena to improve air quality in Madrid by continuing to conduct the program simulating the dispersion of contaminants to the atmosphere. This will enable optimum control of emissions generated by activities carried out at the airport (aircraft operations, ground equipment, vehicles, etc.). We will also continue progressively replacing diesel-powered GHE vehicles with others that use cleaner fuel.

Regarding future measures to reduce consumption of natural resources, we have a project in the pipeline to optimise the irrigation of landscaped areas, using recycled water by connecting the airport to the network of the city of Madrid. As to disseminating information on the environment, we completed the remodelling of Expoambiente Showroom and Plane Exhibitor in 2007, both of which will serve to show visitors environmental issues related to airport activity and ways of minimising their impact on the environment.

63

Glossary

AIP: Aeronautical Information Publication.

CAM: Autonomous Community of Madrid.

CECOA: Centre of Operations.

CSIC: Centre of Scientifi c Research.

DAS: Data Acquisition, Storage and Transmission System.

dB(A): Decibels with A preponderance.

EMS: Environmental Management System.

GHE: Ground handling equipment.

HSP: HC separator plant.

HW: Hazardous waste. INM: Integrated Noise Modelling System.

Leq: Equivalent continuous level. Can refer to diffe-rent time periods:a second, a day (24 h), daytime (16 h) and night time (8 h).

Leq_ plane day: Equivalent continuous level gene-rated by airplanes in daytime hours (from 07:00 to 23:00 local time).

Leq_ plane night: Equivalent continuous level gene-rated by airplanes in night time hours (from 00:00 to 07:00 and 23:00 to 23:59 local time).

Leq _total day: Equivalent continuous level genera-ted by all sources of noise in daytime hours (from 07:00 to 23:00 local time).

Leq _total night: Equivalent continuous level gene-rated by all sources of noise in night time hours (from 00:00 to 07:00 and 23:00 to 23:59).

LIC: Place of communal interest.

MA: Environment.

NMT: Noise-Monitoring Terminal.

OFIMA: Environmental Service and Information Offi ce.

PAHs: Polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons.

RECA: Strategic Environmental Monitoring Net-work.

REDAIR: Air and Wastewater Quality Control Net-work.

RSU: Solid urban waste.

SA: Airport Services.

SCVA: Visual and Acoustic Monitoring System.

SEI: Fire-extinguishing Service.

SERCOM: Company Control Service.

SIRMA: Noise and Flight Path Monitoring Sys-tem.

TMA: New Terminal Control Area.

TOC: Total organic carbon.

TPH: Total hydrocarbons.

VOC: Volatile organic composites.

VOR: VHF Omnidirectional Range (Navigation system).

WCP: Selective Waste Collection Point.

64

Madrid-Barajas Airport - Aena Barajas_i.pdf · Madrid-Barajas Airport is located 12 kilometres...

Documents

Transcript of Madrid-Barajas Airport - Aena Barajas_i.pdf · Madrid-Barajas Airport is located 12 kilometres...