Madrid-Barajas Airport - Aena · the Madrid-Barajas Airport organizes various commit-tees and working groups that meet periodically. Of par-ticular importance is the Environmental

Aeropuerto de Madrid - Barajas

Madrid-Barajas Airport2010 Environmental Management Report

Cubierta_barajasing.indd 1 23/8/11 11:58:07

3 Introduction 4 The Environmental Management System 5 Environmental policy 6 Environmental principles 9 Management review 10 Goals and objectives 12 Audits 13 Environmental aspects 13 Noise 22 Air 32 Water 52 Waste 64 Consumption 69 Flora 71 Fauna 77 Evaluation of aspects 84 Potential aspects 86 SERCOM (Service for Environmental Monitoring of Companies) 92 Evaluation of companies: improvements 95 Environmental reporting 105 Environmental awareness activities 106 World Environment Day 107 Future outlook 109 Glossary

Madrid-Barajas Airport

2010 Environmental Management Report

Este folleto ha sido realizado en papel100% reciclado y ecológico ECF

Cubierta_barajas.indd 2 7/7/11 12:51:43

Presentation

3

One of the commitments of the Madrid-Barajas Airport is to provide its services in a way that is sustainable and compatible with preserving the environment. With this goal in mind, an environmental management system was implemented in the year 2000, whose ISO 14001 certification has been maintained and renewed ever since, yielding significant improvements year after year thanks to the efforts and cooperation of personnel from Aena, businesses, airlines, agencies, institutions and users in general.

In 2010, Aena’s environmental policy was enhanced with new commitments in the area of energy, commit-ments that the Madrid-Barajas Airport has embraced by implementing a series of energy-efficient measures that managed to save over eight million kilowatt-hours over the course of the year. These measures will be expanded in coming years with the implementation of energy-effi-cient systems and renewable energies, the optimization of existing systems and the application of measures to control and monitor electricity consumption.

Of note is the improvement achieved in 2010 in the reuse of non-hazardous materials. The construction of a sorting plant, where waste is segregated manually, allowed for a 24% increase in the amount of packag-

ing and paper and cardboard products that is sorted. We plan to continue improving this percentage by con-structing sorting areas specific to companies that will further facilitate the separation of waste at the point of origin.

Minimizing and monitoring the noise effects stem-ming from airport operations continues to be a primary environmental management concern. Improvements to operations, implementing precision navigation systems and other technical improvements, such as modifying routes in consensus with all of the parties involved in aviation activities, as well as controlling and monitoring activities, are essential to minimizing the acoustic impact on the surroundings. A new sys-tem, available since 2010 on the Aena webpage and called Web-Trak, displays the flightpaths of airplanes landing at or departing from the Madrid-Barajas Air-port, as well as the resulting noise levels. This infor-mation is available to anyone who is interested.

The aim of this report is to make information regarding the environmental performance of the Madrid-Barajas Airport for the year 2010 available to users, clients and employees. It is intended to complement the Sustain-ability Report, which is published annually.

4

The Environmental Management System

Since May 2000, the Madrid-Barajas Airport Envi-ronmental Management System has been ISO 14001:2004 certified by the Aenor Certifying Agen-cy. Following the airport’s expansion, the Environ-mental Management System was expanded in 2006 to all of the activities associated with the 2001 Envi-ronmental Impact Statement, including the compen-satory measures that are carried out in neighboring communities.

Aena defines five strategic areas of action in its manage-ment, one of which is to improve environmental quality.Over the course of 2010, Aena approved a new environ-mental directive that encompasses the principles of its energy efficiency policy.

Persons

Safety

Quality & Environment

Infra-structure &

services

Economic efficiency & financial

viability

Maintain the highest levels of safety in airport operations

Adapt infrastructure capacity to air traffic demands

Improve personnel training and development

Increase personnel motivation and involvement

Improve the quality of infrastructure and services

Increase revenue

Cut costs

Control debt

Increase operability of services and improve inter-

modality

Increase environmental sustainability and energy

efficiency

Foment technical innovation – optimize processes

Improve society’s image of Aena

Maintain the highest levels of safety with regard to persons

and goods

Maintain the highest levels of safety in preventing occupa-

tional risks

5

Aena’s Environmental and Energy Policy

Aena, Spain’s airport and air navigation authority, as aleader in providing safe, quality and efficient air trans-portation services through its airports and air naviga-tion system, is cognizant of its commitment to society to protect the environment and of its role in contributing to the sustainability of air travel.

Consistent with this responsibility, one of Aena’s goals is excellence in the provision of the services assigned to it. This requires, as part of the Spanish Strategy on Sustainable Development, the application of measures that allow for the sustainable development of air travel by striking a balance between its costs and its social, environmental and economic benefits in order to yield a positive result for our society.

Along these lines, Aena’s commitment to the environ-ment has been a constant and ongoing process, one that has involved defining a set of programs and actions, as well as a gradual increase in the resources allotted for achieving its environmental commitments, all hinged around a constantly updated Environmental and Energy Policy that has taken root in our organization’s collective consciousness.

The environmental variable is likewise present in every aspect of our daily activities: planning, projects, con-struction and provision of services. By using suitable indicators, we can define preventive, protective, com-pensatory and corrective measures to minimize any potential impact from airport activities, air navigation and infrastructure development, thus ensuring higher levels of environmental quality, economic progress and the preservation of our natural values.

In keeping with this environmental commitment, the implementation of new environmental management systems is being promoted at airport and air navigation centers. These systems are based on internationally rec-ognized norms that allow for the awarding of environ-mental certifications.

In particular, as part of our commitments under the Kyo-to Protocol, we are striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change by making the most of our energy resources and by turning toward the progressive use of renewable energies as permitted by operational requirements.

This has all led Aena to establish a commitment to envi-ronmental excellence that meets social and environ-mental demands and ensures the sustainable develop-ment of air transportation in keeping with the following principles:

6


Environmental and energy principles

To respect and protect the environment as a central tenet in the management of those activities entrusted to Aena in the area of airports and air navigation, as well as in the development of aviation infrastructure and of commercial spaces and services.

To make air travel compatible with preserving the envi-ronment such that today’s actions do not compromise the quality of life of future generations, thus promoting sustainable development.

To establish procedures for learning of and updating the legal, environmental and energy requirements applica-ble to Aena’s activities and its legal commitments and for complying with them.

To implement an Environmental Management System at each center that is compatible with this environmental policy, and which allows for the periodic definition of environmental goals and objectives, as well as for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of its level of com-pliance so as to assure constant improvement and the prevention of contamination.

To have available the information and resources nec-essary to propose and achieve constant improvement objectives involving energy efficiency as a cornerstone for reducing CO emissions, as part of Aena’s strategy for sustainable development.

To promote actions intended to minimize sound lev-els and that allow for preserving the quality of life in neighborhoods near the airport.

To use the technical and economic means available to prevent the air pollution that may be associated with Aena’s activities, while minimizing chemical emissions and establishing suitable testing, monitoring and cor-rective mechanisms.

To promote the reuse, recycling and management of waste in a way that is environmentally friendly.

To streamline the consumption of energy and natural resources through energy efficiency and the gradual utilization of renewable energies .

To behave transparently with the public agencies, institutions and communities involved in Aena’s activi-ty and to cooperate closely with them so as to prevent any potential environmental impact that may result from those activities associated with air transporta-tion.

To inform all of Aena’s employees, contractors and con-cessionaires of its Environmental Policy and to make it available to our clients and to the rest of society.

To promote awareness in our staff through training programs on the importance of the correct conduct of their activities, encouraging their participation to achieve our goals.

To revise the Environmental Policy periodically so as to meet the organization’s new objectives, adapting it to new needs as they arise.

Madrid, 8 June 2010

Juan I. Lema DevesaPresident-General Manager of Aena

7

Main mechanisms for coordinating environ-mental activities

So as to coordinate environmental actions and activities, the Madrid-Barajas Airport organizes various commit-tees and working groups that meet periodically. Of par-ticular importance is the Environmental Subcommittee, comprised of representatives from various departments who deal with questions such as tracking objectives,

audit results, non-conformities, the system for applying new environmental regulations, and so on.

There are also other working groups comprised of corpo-rate environmental managers and other affected stake-holders and which handle environmental topics of greater importance to society.

NAME OBJECTIVEMEETING

FREQUENCY

STAKEHOLDER

CLIENTS MEMBERS PERSONS OTHERS

ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

Tracking of airport’s environmental

management system

Quarterly/ad-hoc

Divisions: MA, OPS, SSAA, MTO/CON, COM

STEERING COMMITTEE

– Management strategies– Notify of general

instructions– News previews

– Sector committees– Annual review of EMS

Monthly

Assistant DirectorDivisions: GAB DIR, OPS, SSA,

CGA, SEG, MTO/CON, TIC, CON, INFRA, MA, ECO-ADM, RRHH,

COM.Departments: AJ, PRL, SEGOPSPRESS, Quality Management

DAILY BRIEFING Incident tracking Daily

Company guests

(ad hoc)

Assistant Director Divisions: CGA, OPS, TIC, MTO/CON, CON, INFRA, SEG, SSAA,

MADepartments: Executive Service, SEGOPS, PRESS, RSO Manager

WEEKLY BRIEFING Incident tracking Weekly

Company guests

(ad hoc)

Director, Assistant Director,Divisions: CGA, OPS, ECO-ADM,

MTO/COM, CON INFRA, TIC, SEG, SSAA, RRHH, GAB DIR,

MA, COM.Departments: Executive Service,

Quality ManagementAJ, PRL, SEGOPC, MTO NA,

PRESS, RSO Manager

TWR chief, Maintenance

NA

8


NAME OBJECTIVEMEETING

FREQUENCY

STAKEHOLDER

CLIENTS MEMBERS PERSONS OTHERS

TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS

WORKING GROUP

Analyze and propose

improvements for properly following

air routes

Every four months/ad-

hoc

Major airport companies, company

associations: ALA, AECA, IATA

Div. MA, EIS Dev. Dept.

AESA, pilots associations, Air Navigation (airspace

and ACC)

CLEANING GROUPRaise awareness of cleanliness to

operational safetyQuarterly AOC

Handling (3), indoor and

outdoor cleaning companies,

RAESA, ALDEASA, aircraft cleaning companies, fuel

suppliers

Div. SSAA, Div CGA, SEGOPS, Ops Control Dept., Ramp Control Sect.,

Div. MA

NOISE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

(GTTR)

Meetings with town halls to present

new proposals to aid in minimizing

nuisances in municipalities

Quarterly/ad-hoc

Div. MA

Aena (Planning & Environmental

Development Division), Development Ministry,

AESA, town hall officials

SLOTS/NOISE QUOTA

SUBCOMMITTEE

Track compliance with slots and noise

quotasBimonthly

6 largest airlines by traffic, airlines chosen by IATA/

IACA, cargo/general aviation

airline

Div. OPS Dept. OPS & Means, EIS Dev. Dept. (Div. MA)

Aena (central scheduling office), TWR

CSAM (MONITOR MADRID-BARAJAS

EXPANSION)

Track implementation of corrective and

compensatory measures stemming

from 2001 EIS

Monthly (set every meeting)

Director, Assistant

Director, Div. MA

DGAC, AESA, Environment Ministry,

Aena (Planning & Environmental Dev.

Division) Madrid, San Fernando, Paracuellos,

Algete, Alcobendas, San Sebastión Reyes, Coslada

town halls

SUBCOMMITTEE TO MONITOR REMOVAL OF

UNUSABLE AND DISUSED MATERIAL

AND TO TRACK PLATFORM

CLEANLINESS

Monitor platform cleanliness

Monthly

Representatives of handling (3), self-handling (2), and cargo (2) companies. Platform and

waste cleaning company

COAM Div. MA, Ramp

Section Chief, AOC

9

Management review

Every year the Steering Committee conducts a general review of the efficiency and continuous improvement of the airport’s Environmental Management System. As part of the review, Management determines opportuni-ties for improvement and the need to change the sys-tem. The process considers:

The results of audits and legal compliance assess-ments;

Communications from interested external parties, including complaints;

The organization’s environmental performance (waste management, monitoring of atmospheric emissions, discharges, etc.);

Incidents and non-conformities detected during the year;

The degree of compliance with goals and objectives;

The status of corrective and preventive actions;

Situational changes, including the application of new legal requirements and

Recommendations for improvement.

2010 Goals and objectives

10


2010 OBJECTIVES PLANNED GOAL STATUS

DETERMINE THE AIRPORT’S THEORETICAL GREENHOUSE GAS FOOTPRINT

Phase I - Aena and handling company vehicles and facilities: Determine the theoretical greenhouse gas footprint at the airport (2010). The report only

considers the carbon footprint resulting from airport activities, including capture by tree mass. Contribution from handling equipment is pending.

MONITOR ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS FROM GROUND HANDLING

EQUIPMENT

Systematically define monitoring for ground handling equipment: issue specific technical instruction.

Implement new system for monitoring running hours of ground handling equipment. Monitoring started last quarter of the year.

BETTER ASCERTAIN THE QUALITY OF SURFACE, WASTE AND RAIN WATER

Implement surface water monitoring network to continuously ascertain the quality of surface water with at least 90% valid data. Network operational.

Data sent weekly to the CHT starting in July. Percentage of valid data: 98.2%

Set up sampling boxes in modular area and keep detailed record of discharges in the area. Action postponed.

Determine drainage basin for all airport treatment plants so as to define possible causes in event of pollution. Action postponed due to organizational

changes.

OPTIMIZE HANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE TO ACHIEVE 24% SEGREGATION (accumulated annually)

Plan and construct pens on the platform.

Set up new routes in T123 for the selective removal of waste by the airport’s waste handler.

Build and operate a sorting plant.

REDUCE NUMBER OF COMPANY NC AND DEVIATIONS BY 5%

Keep holding contest to reward companies with the best environmental performance.

Completed

In progress

Canceled/Postponed

11

2010 OBJECTIVES PLANNED GOAL STATUS

IMPROVE AIRPORT EMS AND ITS DISSEMINATION THROUGH VARIOUS

INITIATIVES

Prepare a sustainability report that satisfies 100% of the applicable main GRI indicators. In progress.

Plan changes to EMS to achieve EMAS certification.

Improve environmental monitoring of companies by implementing an application for monitoring subcontractors.

Develop an application that allows: managing the EMS documents; filing communications, authorizations and permits and applicable legislation

electronically; checking EMS records and monitoring and recording EMS non-conformities.

REDUCE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Decrease paper consumption in the MA Div. by 10% with respect to 2009. A 29.6% reduction was achieved.

Implement green purchases at the airport, applicable to Din A4 and A3 paper.

ANALYZE BIRD STRIKES AND SET UP MEASURES TO ACHIEVE A 1%

REDUCTION

Study bird movements at the airport.

Prepare report assessing risk from birds and propose at least three measures to minimize risk.

MINIMIZE NOISE IN COMMUNITIES AROUND THE AIRPORT

Continue meeting with the GTTR (at least once a year). No. of meetings held: 1.

Implement Web-Trak service on airport webpage and limit downtime to less than 10%. Downtime as of 31 December: 0%.

Reduce company non-compliances by 10% versus 2009. Reduction as of 31 December: 47%.

Completed

In progress

Canceled/Postponed

12


Audits

The Madrid-Barajas Airport’s Environmental Manage-ment System is audited internally and externally every year to evaluate its improvement and to determine its compliance with ISO 14001 standards and applicable regulations.

The table below shows the results of the audits con-ducted since the implementation and certification of the EMS in the year 2000.

Year Audit Auditor Non-conformities found

2000 (February) Certification AENOR 12

2001 (December) Internal Aena-INECO 8

2001 (June) Follow-up AENOR 6

2002 (April) Internal Aena-INECO 12

2002 (May) Follow-up AENOR 3

2002 (November) Internal Aena-INECO 12

2003 (April) Renewal AENOR 4


2004 (March) Internal Aena-INECO 12

2004 (May) Follow-up AENOR 3


2005 (March) Internal Aena-INECO 10

2005 (April) Follow-up AENOR 3


2006 (May) Internal Aena-INECO 6

2006 (June) Renewal AENOR 4





2009 (January) Internal Aena-INECO 4

2009 (March) Renewal AENOR 0

2010 (January) Internal Aena-INECO 3

2010 (March) Follow-up AENOR 0

13

Environmental aspects

Every year the Madrid-Barajas Airport analyzes the en-vironmental aspects associates with its activity so as to minimize any related impacts by means of prevention and monitoring.

This analysis takes into consideration the airport’s normal operating conditions, maintenance activities, planned projects or reforms, as well as situations involving emer-gencies or accidents.

Below is a brief presentation on the main environmental aspects identified at the airport, as well as the findings stemming from the monitoring activities associated with each.

Noise

One of the primary concerns at the airport is to mini-mize the noise that affects nearby neighborhoods. This entails a considerable effort in several different areas:

Improved operations: by introducing precision navigation routes (PRNAV), monitoring opera-tions to detect potential violations of established procedures and participating in various working groups to review routes and improve maneu-vers.

Monitor and control noise by conducting noise measurements in affected municipalities around the airport.

Communicate and reach a consensus with those involved in aviation activities.

Implement the Noise Insulation Plan in dwellings as approved by local governments.

14


MINIMIZING THE ACOUSTIC IMPACT

Community relations

In order to improve the dissemination of information on noise levels, an application called Web-Trak was developed. This application has been available on the

Aena website since 10 January 2010 and offers reliable and transparent information regarding airplane opera-tions and the sound levels they generate. This system shows the flightpaths of airplanes landing at or tak-ing off from Madrid-Barajas, as well as the noise levels associated with these maneuvers.

15

In order to reach a consensus and minimize the noise impact, the airport holds meetings with municipal representatives. In 2010, nine such meetings were held. At these meetings, the current status was dis-cussed, as well as the courses of action being pursued by Aena to reduce environmental noise levels specific to each case in particular.

For this same purpose, meetings are held with repre-sentatives from town halls affected by airport opera-tions through the Noise Technical Working Group (GTTR), which was created in 2009 as part of the CSAM. This group gathers proposals from municipali-ties and analyzes them in an effort to find alternatives to minimize noise levels.

Monitoring and enforcement of established proce-dures and applicable regulations

The airport’s Environmental Division monitors airplane flightpaths on a daily basis, analyzing any potential procedural or regulatory violations and reporting potential non-compliances to Spain’s Aviation Safety Agency, as appropriate.

So as to gradually decrease the number of non-com-pliances and improve operations, thereby reducing noise levels in surrounding communities, individual meetings are held with specific airlines to discuss improvements to following standard routes, analyzing specific points of contention and coordinating follow-up actions to improve flight procedures. These meetings are yielding very good results.

Meetings are also held with the Trajectory Analysis Technical Group. Its eighth meeting was held in 2010 for the purpose of improving operations and track fol-lowing and minimizing environmental impacts in and around the airport. This group includes representatives from various pilots and airlines associations, from the Air Navigation Office and from the airport. It reviews and analyzes proposals for improving the arrival and departure routes for the Madrid-Barajas Airport.

The airport continues to monitor for compliance with applicable regulations.

- The DGAC resolution of 30 August 2006

This resolution dictates the reduction in operations of marginally compliant aircraft, its aim being to have these aircraft cease operations at the airport by 2012.

This resolution forces a gradual reduction of between 15 to 20% each season.

There is also a restriction on nighttime operations between 11pm and 7am local time for aircraft with a noise level equal to or greater than 4. This restric-tion has been in place since October 2006.

16


- DGAC Aviation Circular 2/2006 of 26 July

Lists several operating restrictions, including:

- A ban on departing from standard routes when below 10,000 ft (flight level 100).

- A restriction on the use of reverse thrusters at night, and of auxiliary power units and on con-ducting engine tests in facilities not designed for that purpose.

- A ban on arrival and departure movements or any type of maintenance during nighttime hours in the parking areas identified as R5, R6 and Dique Sur (South Dock).

Another significant regulation is the application at the airport of Law 34/2007 on Air Quality and Protecting the Atmosphere.

Since 2007, pursuant to the second final stipulation in this law, a noise surcharge has been applied in addi-tion to the normal landing fee, the amount of this surcharge depending on the aircraft category and on the time of the operation.

The purpose of this measure is to discourage the use of noisy aircraft. This law also envisions a higher penalty for nighttime operations, which are double those of daytime operations.

Acoustic classification (category)Justification Surcharge

Description 7am to 10:59pm (LT) 11pm to 6:59am (LT)

1 Marginally compliant (*) 70% 140%

2 Airplanes lacking the latest technology (**) 20% 40%

3 Airplanes with the latest technology 0% 0%

4 Airplanes in design stage 0% 0%

(*): 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

17

Improved operations

P-RNAV maneuvers have been in place since 2009. These are based on precision navigation systems and are used for takeoffs in a North or South configuration. These sys-tems are based on geographical coordinates that allow

for fewer path deviations, thus minimizing the impact on nearby urban centers.

The gradual incorporation of these systems in aircraft is allowing for significant improvements in takeoff opera-tions at the airport. These precision routes were used 80% of the time in 2010.

2007 Introduction of P-RNAV maneuvers on takeoff

2007 Introduction of noise surcharge on aircraft operating at the airport

Nov 2007 Creation of the Trajectory Analysis Committee and its Technical Group

6/06/2007 Modification of nighttime route for threshold 36L

15/01/2008Revision to the 2004 sound footprint presented at the 26th meeting of the CSAM, using real data corresponding to a

year of operations (Oct ‘06 to Oct ‘07)

10/07/2008At the 27th CSAM meeting, the creation of a Noise Technical Working Group (GTTR) is approved. Reporting to the

CSAM, the GTTR will study possible technical initiatives to minimize sound levels.

7/05/2009 New P-RNAV routes go into effect for all northbound destinations.

04/06/2009 Sixth meeting of the Trajectory Analysis Technical Group.

16/06/2009 First meeting of the Noise Technical Working Group.

July 2009 Measurement campaign in the municipality of Loeches.

13/10/2009 Second meeting of the Noise Technical Working Group.

October 2009 Measurement campaign in the municipality of El Casar de Talamanca

October 2009 Measurement campaign in the municipality of Hoyo de Manzanares

11/12/2009 Seventh meeting of the Trajectory Analysis Technical Group.

10/01/2010 Web-Trak application on the Aena webpage operational.

May 2010 Measurement campaign in the Cotos de Monterrey development.

08/10/2010 Third meeting of the Noise Technical Working Group.

14/12/2010 Eighth meeting of the Trajectory Analysis Technical Group.

Summary of notable milestones in the last four years involving noise control.

18


Monitoring systems

Noise Monitoring System (SIRMA)

This system receives information on both the noise recorded at NMTs (Noise Monitoring Terminal) located within the airport complex and in nearby towns, as well as radar and flightplan data from the SACTA system.

This system associates the noise recorded on each NMT with the offending aircraft, from which it can obtain all of its flight information.

Number and location of NMTs

NMT LOCATION

1 La Moraleja

2 Algete

3 San Sebastián de los Reyes

4 Fuente el Fresno

5 Santo Domingo Sur

6 Fuente del Saz

7 Paracuellos

8 Mejorada

9 Belvis

10 San Fernando

11 Coslada Estación

12 Alameda de Osuna

13 Barajas

16 Tres Cantos

18 El Molar

20 Torrejón

21 Santo Domingo Norte

23 Los Berrocales

24 Ciudalcampo

25 Prado Norte

26 Club de Campo

27 La Granjilla

19

Map showing the location of the microphones that make up the SIRMA network and of air routes in use in 2010.

20


Acoustic Monitoring and Tracking System (AMTS)

Consisting of two noise monitors and three cameras, this system is used to monitor compliance with the nighttime operating restrictions imposed by the 2001 EIS in the area

of ramps 5 and 6 on the apron, and in the Dique Sur (South Dock), which are closest to populated areas.

The following graph shows the dB (A) recorded by the NMTs in 2010.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27

DATA MEASURED BY NMTs IN 2010

Leq_airplane dB (A) d 37 55 51 54 53 53 47 59 62 63 66 40 47 42 49 53 53 51 49 55 52 58

Leq_airplane dB (A) n 29 34 32 45 44 45 36 50 52 54 57 34 37 23 39 45 45 42 26 54 44 40

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

21

The following table shows a comparison of Leq_airplane data from 2009-2010 for day and nighttime periods. Note the increase in the values for nighttime Leq in the towns of Coslada, San Fernando de Henares and Mejorada as a result of the repeated closings of run-

way 15L/33R, caused by maintenance and other work to improve said runway. This work was essential in order to comply with operational safety regulations.

Location NMTLeq_airplane dB(A) - day Leq_airplane dB(A) - night

2009 2010 2009 2010

La Moraleja 1 36 37 25 29

Algete 2 55 55 34 34

San Sebastián de los Reyes 3 52 51 31 32

Fuente el Fresno 4 54 54 45 45

Santo Domingo (S) 5 53 53 42 44

Fuente el Saz 6 53 53 45 45

Paracuellos 7 46 47 36 36

Mejorada 8 59 59 45 50

Belvis 9 61 62 51 52

San Fernando 10 64 63 48 54

Coslada Estación 11 66 66 50 57

Alameda de Osuna 12 40 40 29 34

Barajas 13 48 47 32 37

Tres Cantos 16 43 42 25 23

El Molar 18 49 49 39 39

Torrejón 20 53 53 44 45

Santo Domingo (N) 21 54 53 43 45

Los Berrocales 23 50 51 42 42

Ciudalcampo 24 49 49 25 26

Prado Norte 25 55 55 54 54

Club de Campo 26 51 52 43 44

La Granjilla 27 58 58 39 40

22


Air

The Madrid-Barajas Airport has an Automatic Air Qual-ity Monitoring Network (REDAIR) to keep track of the atmospheric pollutants that are generated as a result of airport activities.

This air quality monitoring network consists of three fixed stations and one mobile laboratory. The stations are positiones in consensus with the Ministry of the Environment and the Community of Madrid and

are based on the results of atmospheric pollution mod-eling studies that are carried out in the area.

This air quality network records inhalation values in areas affected by airport operations (takeoff, landing and taxiing) to determine whether these values are in compliance with regulatory limits. The network quickly and efficiently detects potential alert or emergency situ-ations.

LOCATION OF THE AIRPORT’S REDAIR STATIONS

REDAIR

sta

tion 3

REDAIR

sta

tion 2

REDAIR

stat

ion 1

23

Redair station 1: located near the 15R and 15L thresh-olds, near the T4 satellite terminal.

Redair station 2: fixed station located at the western edge of the airport complex near the airport’s service road.

Redair station 3: currently located near the South Dock, in front of platforms R5-R6, at the western edge of the airport complex. Based on the results of the latest studies, however, this location has been determined to be inadequate for accurately determining the pollution generated by airport activities in the area. The mobile laboratory, until March 2010 located next to the Central FFS, was relocated to the Satellite FFS in order to determine where Redair sation 3 should be sited.

The air quality monitoring network measures inhalation values for leading atmospheric pollutants:

PM10 and PM2.5 suspended particulate matter

Nitrogen dioxide/Nitrogen oxides – NO2/NOx

Ozone - O3

Sulfur dioxide - SO2

Total hydrocarbons - TPH (with and without meth-ane)

Lead

Benzene

Carbon monoxide - CO The measuring stations house the various pieces of ana-lytical equipment needed to take the measurements and a weather substation. Once validated, the data are published daily on Aena’s website and added to a file containing air quality information that is subsequently sent to the Madrid City Hall, the Community of Madrid and the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs.

24


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

Hourly limit for the protection of human

health

210Limit value may not be exceeded more

than 18 times a year

No violations recorded

3 violations

72 violations





None recorded 47 violations 1 violation

Annual limit for the protection of human

health

42 Not exceeded Not exceeded 51 μg/ m3 Not exceeded

40 Not exceeded 41 μg/ m3 43 μg/ m3 Not exceeded

Annual limit for the protection of vegetation (NOX)

30 61 μg/ m3 74 μg/ m3 83 μg/ m3 49 μg/ m3

30 52 μg/ m3 72 μg/ m3 79 μg/ m3 47 μg/ m3

Alert threshold

400Limit value may not be exceeded over three consecutive

hours

No alert threshold violations recorded





hours





As per RD 1073/2002 (transposition of EC Directive 1999/30)

Below is a comparison of the results for 2009 and 2010 for each of the pollutants measured, along with the legal limits:

2009

2010

25

SO2 Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit


health













Daily limit for the protection of human

health

125Limit value may not be exceeded more than 3 times a year

Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded

125Limit value may not be exceeded more than 3 times a year

Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded

Annual limit for the protection of

vegetation

20 Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded Not exceeded


Alert threshold


hours






hours






2009

2010

26


PM 10 Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit

Daily limit for the protection of human

health

50 Limit value may not be exceeded more


4 violations

5 violations

8 violations

6 violations

50 Limit value may not be exceeded more


7 violations

10 violations

13 violations

9 violations


health




PM 2.5 Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit


health

25No violations

recordedNo violations



recorded

25No violations




recorded

EC Directive 2008/50

2009

2009

2010

2010

27

CO Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit


health

10No violations




recorded

10No violations




recorded


2009

2010

O3 Límite μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit

Threshold for informing public

180 for more than one

hour






hour





Threshold for alerting public


hour






hour






2009

2010

28


BENZENE Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit


health

6No violations




recorded

5No violations




recorded


2009

2010

LEAD Limit μg/ m³ REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3 Mobile unit


health

0,5No violations




recorded

0,5No violations




recorded


2009

2010

TPH REDAIR 1 REDAIR 2 REDAIR 3

Average annual value(mg/m3)

1,97 2,01 1,98

2,02 2,11 2,11

2009

2010

There is currently no specific regulation for Total Hydrocarbons without methane. Thus, the results shown cannot be referenced with respect to a legal limit.

29

Conc

entr

atio

n M

icro

gram

s/m

3

As the above tables show, the pollutants that exhibit-ed the highest concentrations in the atmosphere (with regard to the regulatory limits) were PM10 particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

In the case of PM10, all three stations recorded values in excess of the limit in 2010, but no station exceeded the limit on more than 35 occasions (maximum number

of “violations” of the daily limit value allowed by law in one year).

As for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 47 “violations” of the hourly limit for the protection of human health were recorded in 2010 by Redair station 3, a signifi-cantly lower number than in 2009.

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

COMPARISON SHOWING TREND IN AVERAGE MONTHLY NO2 CONCENTRATIONS AT REDAIR 3 WITH THE STATIONS OF THE MADRID CITY HALL IN 2010

REDAIR 3 Plaza del Carmen Cuatro CaminosAvda. Ramón y Cajal Arturio Soria General RicardosMoratalaz Barajas City hall network avg.

30


COMPARISON SHOWING TREND IN AVERAGE MONTHLY NO2 CONCENTRATIONS AT REDAIR 3 WITH THE STATIONS OF THE MADRID CITY HALL IN 2010

Conc

entr

atio

n M

icro

gram

s/m

3

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

REDAIR 3 GETAFE LEGANÉSALCALÁ DE HENARES ALCOBENDAS FUENLABRADAMÓSTOLESCOSLADA

TORREJÓN DE ARDOZ ALCORCÓN

31

If we observe the above graphs, we can see how the con-centrations of NO2, in both the Community of Madrid and the Madrid City Hall networks, exhibit similar trends and values to those of REDAIR 3. This is indicative of the direct influence of one of the main NO2 emission sources, road traffic, since the airport is surrounded by several highways: the A-2 to Barcelona, the M-14 (which links the A-2 and M-40 with the airport), the M-11 (which links the airport with Madrid and the M-30) and the M-50 (a beltway around Madrid). The stations that would be most affected by the influence of these highways are Redair 3, which is 700 meters away from the A-2, 250 meters away from the M-14 and 600 meters away from the M-11, and Redair 2, which is 320 meters away from the M-11 and 150 meters away from the junction of the M-13 and M-14. The pre-diction models show that this influence is considerable in the case of Redair 3.

This is why the Atmospheric Quality Office of the Com-munity of Madrid’s Council for the Environment, Hous-ing and Spatial Planning has requested that this location be relocated. To this end, several measuring campaigns are currently underway with the mobile laboratory at various points throughout the airport.

As with NO2, the particulate matter (PM10) value is also affected by road traffic, though many of these particles have a natural origin, since for 63 days in 2010, the Community of Madrid was affected by particles origi-nating in the Sahara or from the combustion of biomass (data obtained from the www.calima.ws website).

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE EMISSION OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANTS

The Madrid-Barajas Airport is taking measures to mini-mize atmospheric emissions, including:

Increasing the tree mass: in late 2010, the airport’s tree mass was increased through the planting of 2,742 pine trees which, according to a recent study, is enough to offset approximately 20,811 of the MT of CO2 generated to date within the air-port complex. Implementing the Ground Handling Vehicle Replace-ment Program (GSE) through the installation in 2011 of new compressed natural gas (CNG) stations that will allow for natural gas to replace diesel as the fuel for practically all of the airport’s vehicles.

Implementing energy efficiency measures, mainly in low-voltage applications, thus reducing the indirect emissions generated from the production of electric-ity. Since 2006, more than 60% of the energy used at the airport has been generated at the airport’s own cogeneration plant, with the ensuing reduction in greenhouse gases versus conventional systems.

Optimizing the carbon footprint calculation and hav-ing the Madrid-Barajas Airport take part in the Airport Carbon Accreditation certification program (European standard for airports that determines their efficiency in minimizing greenhouse gases), phasing in reduction measures in agreement with third parties.

32


Water

Surface water: streams and lagoon

At the far eastern end of the Madrid-Barajas Airport and east of the airfield (runways 36R-18L and 33R-15L), in the Jarama River valley, is a permanent lagoon with an approximate surface area of two hectares. A portion of the Jarama River also runs through the airport, as do the Tía Martina-La Plata, Valdebebas, Zorreras and La Vega streams, which empty into the Jarama.

The airport expansion required a series of modifications to both the river and the streams. Part of the two new runways constructed (15L-33R and 18L-36R) are in the

Jarama River public waterway, meaning that the con-struction of runway 15L - 33R required part of that river to be diverted. The new riverbed is the same length as the original and its construction was authorized by the Tajo Water Authority (CHT).

As for the streams, the construction of the satellite ter-minal platform forced the diversion of the Tía Martina-La Plata and Valdebebas streams with the construction of a new riverbed to combine the waters from both streams. The construction of the 18L - 36R runway required that a portion of the Tía Martina-La Plata-Valdebebas, Zorreras and La Vega streams be channeled underneath.

3

Laguna

Arroyo de Valdebebas

Arroyo de las Zorreras

Arroyo de la Vega

Upstream sample point Sample point downstream of the Tía Martina - La Plata junction Downstream sample point

ORTHO IMAGE OF MADRID-BARAJAS AIRPORT SHOWING SAMPLING POINTS FOR SURFACE WATERS (STREAMS AND LAGOON)

33

To ensure that the activities that take place within the air-port complex do not affect the quality of the surface water in the airport, physical and chemical samples are taken twice a year .

The samples are analyzed by a water analysis and control laboratory that is accredited by the water authority as a col-laborating agency for the purposes of checking and moni-toring water quality.

The parameters measured are defined in the Water Control Program and the reference values are set by the Tajo Water Plan for this section of the Jarama River basin.

The results of the analyses performed on the airport’s streams and lagoon in 2009 and 2010 are shown below.

AVERAGE HALF-YEARLY ANALYSES AT STREAM DISCHARGE POINTS FOR 2009 AND 2010

Reference value (mgr/l)

Valdebebas(upstream)

Valdebebas(junction)

Valdebebas(downstream)

Zorreras(upstream)

Zorreras(downstream)

De la Vega(upstream)

De la Vega(downstream)

Annual avg. Annual avg. Annual avg. Annual avg. Annual avg. Annual avg. Annual avg.

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

pH - 7.9 7.7 8.4 8.6 7.9 8.2 8 7.9 8.2 8.15 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.95

Conductivity - 703.5 822 706.5 675 690 657 758 801 712.5 765 889.5 927 946 935

Oil & grease - 0.1 0.06 6 0.13 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.94 0.1 0.48 8.2 0.2 4.6 0.26

COD - 10.5 12 267.5 13 34.5 10 30 30 14 16 195 83.5 235 87.5

BOD5 15 10 10 8 5 6 5 7.5 7.5 7 5 65 19 50 17

SS 25 4.6 4.25 17.8 8 9.5 5.5 14 22.5 12.5 3.5 91 17.5 90 21

Dissolved HC - 0.1 0.05 0.6 0.06 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.78 0.1 0.05 0.9 0.07 0.5 0.07

NH4 10 4.4 0.93 2 1.01 4.2 0.4 8.6 5.85 0.1 0.15 51.5 56.5 46.5 55.5

Total phosphates

3 0.6 0.33 0.6 0.41 1.4 0.34 1.8 1.25 1.2 1 1.4 0.8 2.1 1.05

34


Con

cent

rati

on m

g/L

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

3

The analyses of the samples taken at the de la Vega Stream in both 2009 and 2010 showed that the objec-tive quality limits for the BOD5, suspended solids (SS) and ammonia (NH4) were exceeded, but since these

high values were recorded at control points upstream and downstream of the airport expansion area, the con-tamination was deemed not to have originated at the airport.

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

Valdebebas(upstream)

Valdebebas(junction)

Valdebebas(downstream)

Zorreras(upstream)

Zorreras(downstream)

De la Vega(upstream)

De la Vega(downstream)

ANALYTICAL HALF-YEARLY RESULTS FOR 2009-2010 DISCHARGE POINTS: STREAMS

BOD5

SSNH4

Total phosphates

35

The analyses yielded below-limit results for both 2009 and 2010, except for the first half of 2009, in which the objective quality value for BOD5 was exceeded due to the low water level in the lagoon, and the second half

of 2010, with the excessive reading for the suspended solids objective quality value due to the sediments car-ried in the water resulting from the rain that had fallen for several days prior.

ANALYTICAL HALF-YEARLY RESULTS FOR 2009-2010 SAMPLE POINT: AIRPORT LAGOON

ParameterReference value

(mgr/l)1st half 2009 1st half 2010 2nd half 2009 2nd half 2010

pH - 8.1 8.4 7.9 8.0

Conductivity - 165 117 195 164

Oil & grease - 0.39 0.45 0.7 0.30

COD - 158 54 79 58

BOD5 15 50 11 13 7

SS 25 25 21 12 50

Dissolved HC - 0.07 0.09 0.53 0.056

NH4 10 0.74 1.7 0.07 0.26

Total phosphates 3 0.78 0.15 0.33 0.32

36


Par

3

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/l)

60

50

40

30

20

10

1er half 2009 1er half 2010 2o half 2009 2o half 2010

BOD5

SSNH4

Total phosphates

HALF-YEARLY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR 2009-2010SAMPLE POINT: AIRPORT LAGOON

In 2010, a Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network (NINFA network) was installed at the airport. This net-work allows for the constant monitoring of a set of water quality parameters that are monitored and proc-

essed in real time from a control center located in the offices of the Environment Division.

37

ORTHOIMAGE SHOWING LOCATION OF NINFA NETWORK STATIONS

The Ninfa network consists of two measuring stations located in the Valdebebas Stream. The “Ninfa 1” sta-tion is located in the area at the end of runway 36L, just before crossing it, and “Ninfa 2” is at the end of runway 36R, just after crossing it (before it joins the Jarama). These analytical stations are equipped with probes to measure:

Temperature

pH

Conductivity

Dissolved oxygen

Turbidity

Organic material

Ammonium

The goal of this network, in addition to assessing the environmental impact of the activities that take place at the airport, is to diagnose the extent of any pollu-tion that may be present and to establish measures for reducing it.

Ninfa Station 1Valdebebas Streamupstream

Ninfa Station 2Valdebebas Streamdownstream

38


Rain water

Depending on the source of the water and the type of sediment it might carry, the drainage system for the maneuvering area channels any possible spills that might take place on the platform to a treatment area prior to its discharge into public water streams.

The Madrid-Barajas currently has 12 oil-water separa-tors (OWS), five desanders and a suction tank. There are a total of 16 discharge points to public water streams, the permit for which was renewed by the Tajo Water Authority in 2010.

OWS LOCATIONS WITHIN AIRPORT COMPLEX

39

In order to monitor the quality of the rain water dis-charged to public streams, the airport conducts twice-yearly tests. These checks are made by a water analysis and quality control service that is authorized by the wa-ter authority to carry out water quality monitoring and testing.

The quality of the rain water is compared against the limit values specified by the CHT in its corresponding discharge permit.

Runway 18L/36R desander

Zorreras North and South OWS

Zorreras North and South OWS

40


The results of the analyses conducted at the 16 authorized effluent points are shown below:

Parameter Dissolved HC Suspended Solids (SS)

Legal limit < 5 mg/L < 35 mg/L

2010 1st half 2nd half 1st half 2nd half

Sample point 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

Zorreras north and south (1) (*) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 (*) 4.5 6.3 <3.0

Valdebebas south/ south 2 east (*) <0.05 0.53 <0.05 (*) 7 4.0 <3.0

Valdebebas north (*) <0.05 <0.05 0.058 (*) 13 9 4.1

CELA area (*) <0.05 <0.05 (***) (*) 6.6 3.2 (***)

PIC area (*) <1 (**) 0.13 <0.05 (*) 16 (**) 5.0 8.4

36R threshold (*) 1.1 0.26 1.2 (*) 12 10 3.9

Platform OWS 5 0.7 0.7 0.6 10 7.1 11 8.7

Remotos OWS (*) 0.16 0.27 <0.05 (*) 10 4.0 20

Runway 18L/36R Desander 1 (*) 0.35 0.35 0.16 (*) <3.0 <3.0 15

Runway 18L/36R Desander 2 (*) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 (*) 3.2 5.4 3.8

Runway 18L/36R Desander 3 <0,20 0.053 <0.05 <0.05 <5.0 6.2 7.7 3.6

Runway 18L/36R Platform OWS 2,3 4.5 0.31 <0.05 24 27 3.0 7.8

Runway 15L/33R Desander 1 (*) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 (*) 7.1 4.1 <3.0

Runway 15L/33R Desander 2 (*) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 (*) 16 3.2 <3.0

Runway 15L/33R Desander –Pump tank <0,05 <0.05 0.23 0.10 6.9 8.7 8.8 16

Runway 15L/33R Platform OWS and duplicate left Platform OWS

<0,20 <0.05 <0.20 0.08 <5.0 <3.0 <5.0 5.7

Runway 18L/36R OWS 1 (*) 0.08 <0.05 0.13 (*) 5.7 3.6 20

(1) These effluent points have a common outlet and have been combined into a single effluent point.(*) No measurements were taken at these effluent points in the first half of 2009 due to lack of flow.(**) Results of comparison analyses made in February 2010.(***) This effluent point has been deleted after verifying that it currently flows into the pump tank and not into the Rejas Stream.

As the table shows, all of the results were within specification in both 2009 and 2010.

41

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/l)

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Zorreras North and South

PIC AreaValdebebas South

Platform OWS36R Threshold

Runway 18L/36R Platform OWSRunway 18L/36R no. 1 OWS

Remotos OWS

Runway 15L/33R Platform OWSValdebebas North

TPH(limit ≤ 5 mg/l)

SS(limit ≤ 35 mg/l)

AVERAGE TPH AND SS RESULTS FOR THE SAMPLES TAKEN AT ALL THE OIL-WATER SEPARATORS IN 2010

42


Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/l)

10

8

6

4

2

Runway 18L/36R Desander 1Runway 18L/36R Desander 2Runway 18L/36R Desander 3

Runway 15L/33R Desander 2Runway 15L/33R Desander 1

TPH(limit ≤ 5 mg/l)

SS(limit ≤ 35 mg/l)

AVERAGE OF TPH AND SS PARAMETERS IN DESANDER ANALYSES IN 2010

43

Waste water

Urban- and household-type waste water is generated at the airport by sanitary services, cafeterias, restaurants and activities involving the platform and the terminals.

The quality of the waste water at the discharge points into the municipal sewage network is checked monthly (T123 terminal area) or quarterly (expansion area) by a water monitoring and analysis service that conducts the tests at accredited laboratories.

The quality of the waste water is checked against the limits set by the Community of Madrid and municipal ordinances, or in the corresponding discharge permits.

The following graph shows the trend in the oil and grease parameter for 2009 and 2010 at the T123 ef-fluent point.

Con

cent

rati

on m

g/L

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

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

OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION IN 2009-2010 AT THE T123 EFFLUENT POINT

Oil and grease(limit ≤100 mg/l)

TPH(limit ≤20 mg/l)

44


In 2009 and 2010, the final effluent point for the T123 line had readings in excess of the limit for total hydrocar-bons (mainly due to the sample’s kerosene content) and oil and grease, due to unauthorized discharges that are channeled into the sewage network.

Plans are in place to conduct exhaustive monitoring of the discharges made by companies in 2011 and to build basins within the airport’s modular area that will enable

As the table shows, the total nitrogen parameter was ex-ceeded at the T4 North, T4 Satellite and Control Tower-CELA effluent points. This finding was determined to be

for the constant sampling of the effluent point and to thus detect any possible anomalies.

The following table shows the samples taken at the ef-fluent points corresponding to: Terminal 4 North, Ter-minal 4 South, Satellite Terminal, Control Tower-CELA (Airside Electrical Plan) and the technical area (which includes the effluent from the no. 1 electric plant, the effluent liquid plant, the cogeneration plant and the waste transfer station).

a result of the nature of the effluent and was reported to the Madrid City Hall.

Annual average of the quarterly samples taken at the expansion area effluent points in 2010

Sample point T4 North T4 South T4 Satellite TWR-CELA Systems area Limit (mgr/l)

BOD5 (mgO2/l) 535 341.25 733.75 445 78 1,000

COD (mgO2/l) 814.25 523 1,105.75 804.5 78 1,750

SS (mg/l) 358 275.75 655.5 202.75 34 1,000

Total nitrogen (mg/l) 579.5 97.5 416.25 816.5 86 125

Oil and grease (mg/l) 40.25 25.25 58.5 44.75 – 100

45

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

ANNUAL AVERAGE OF 2010 QUARTERLY ANALYSES EFFLUENT POINTS: T4 North, T4 South , T4 Satellite and TWR-CELA

Oil and grease COD BOD5 SS Total nitrogen

T4 NorthT4 SouthT4 SatelliteTWR-CELA

46


Ground water

The Madrid-Barajas Airport has a Strategic Environ-mental Monitoring Network (RECA) made up of 61 piezometers, which monitor the quality of the ground water in the aquifers below the airport.

47

In 2009, the Community of Madrid’s Environmental Council approved a new control plan for this network of piezometers that, in addition to specifying sam-pling

and parameter specifications, re-references the bore holes by dividing the airport complex into a grid.

In keeping with this new plan, twice-annual quality con-trol checks are made of the underground water. These checks are scheduled and agreed to by the CHT and the Community of Madrid. In 2010, these sample periods extended from June to July and from December 2010 to January 2011.

For the piezometers in the T123 area, the monitoring parameters selected are directly related to the type of activity that takes place in the area (only airport activi-ties):

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

Total BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes)

PAH (naphthalene, acenaphthylene, pyrenes, anthracene, etc.)

pH and electrical conductivity (E.C.)

As for the piezometers in the T4 area, the parameters monitored are related to the type of activity carried out in the areas occupied by the airport expansion:

Oil and grease or lipophilic substances

Ammonia

pH and electrical conductivity (E.C.)

Piezometers

48


Results of bore hole analyses

(*) Piezometers destroyed by construction(**) Parameters for annual campaigns

Bore hole (old reference)

Bore hole (new reference)

Sample date

June/July 2010 December 2010/January 2011

E.C. at 25ºC pHTPH

(C10-C40)E.C. at 25ºC pH

TPH (C10-C40)

BETX** PAH’s **

μS/cm mg/l μS/cm mg/l μg/l μg/l

Action levelDutch regulation

2,500 6.5-9.5 0.6 2,500 6.5-9.5 0.6 30 0.05

184/08-24 10D-56* - - - - - - - -

184/08-30 10D-23 1,160 7.0 <0.2 1,220 7.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

184/08-33 10D-28 930 7.2 <0.2 960 7.3 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

184/08-35 10D-41 1030 7.2 <0.2 1,060 7.8 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

184/08-39 10D-57 930 7.3 <0.2 1,060 7.3 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID8-2 8C-1 620 7.0 <0.2 660 6.9 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID14 9D-1 800 7.0 <0.2 820 7.3 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID19 9D-5 820 6.8 <0.2 800 6.7 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID-20 9D-3 960 7.1 <0.2 - - - - -

ID29 9D-25 790 7.3 <0.2 840 7.4 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID-43 10D-55* - - - - - - - -

ID49 10C12 1,400 7.3 <0.2 1,280 6.8 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID65 8D-3 780 7.4 <0.2 820 7.4 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID69 10D-42 940 7.3 <0.2 970 7.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID102 9D-2 740 7.0 <0.2 730 7.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID146 10D-10 830 7.2 <0.2 880 6.9 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID152 9D-18 980 6.6 <0.2 980 6.6 <0.2 1.3 <0.5

ID156 9D-6 760 6.6 <0.2 800 7.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID159 9D-4 790 6.8 <0.2 820 8.0 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID162 10D-20 1,220 6.9 <0.2 1,220 6.7 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5

ID163 9D-28 1,000 6.9 <0.2 1,010 6.9 <0.2 0.9 <0.5

ID170 10D-54* - - - - - - - -

49



Sample date


E.C. at 25ºC pHLipophilic substances

Ammonia E.C. at 25ºC pHLipophilic substances

Ammonia

μS/cm mg/l mg/l μS/cm mg/l mg/l

Maximum allowable concentrations per RD

140/2003 (Annex I)2,500 6.5-9.5 1 0.5 2,500 6.5-9.5 1 0.5

NAT-01 8B-1 620 7.4 <1 <0.05 640 6.8 <1 <0.05

NAT-02 8A-1 990 7.3 <1 <0.05 990 7.0 <1 <0.05

NAT-03 7A-1 570 6.4 <1 0.05 620 7.2 <2 0.05

NAT-04 6A-1 980 7.2 <1 <0.05 900 6.6 <1 <0.05

NAT-05 6B-1 900 7.1 <1 <0.05 850 6.9 <1 <0.05

NAT-06 5B-2 830 7.4 <1 <0.05 860 6.9 <1 <0.05

NAT-07 6B-2 310 8.0 <1 <0.05 310 8.3 <1 <0.05

NAT-08 7B-1 770 7.3 <1 <0.05 400 7.1 <1 <0.05

NAT-09 7B-2 530 6.9 <1 <0.05 480 7.8 <5 <0.05

18R-01 5B-1 910 7.2 <1 <0.05 610 7.1 <5 <0.05

18R-02 4B-1 980 7.3 <1 <0.05 990 7.0 <1 <0.05

18R-03 2B-1 1,180 7.2 <1 <0.2 920 6.9 <1 <0.2

18R-04 2C-1 1,010 6.8 <1 1.50 960 6.4 <1 1.70

18R-05 3C-1 750 7.4 <1 <0.05 760 7.1 <1 <0.05

18R-06 3C-3 4,400 7.0 <1 <0.2 1630 7.3 <1 <0.05

18R-07 3C-4 860 7.2 <1 <0.05 680 7.0 <1 <0.05

18R-08 3C-5 880 7.1 <1 <0.05 910 7.4 <1 <0.05

18L-01 2D-2 750 7.2 <1 <0.05 830 7.3 <1 <0.05

18L-02 2D-1 1,110 7.2 <1 <0.05 1,320 7.0 <1 <0.05

18L-03 3D-2 840 7.0 <1 3.60 980 6.5 <1 2.70

18L-05 5D-1 1120 6.6 <1 0.31 1,180 6.7 <1 <0.05

18L-06 6D-1 930 6.7 <1 <0.05 960 6.6 <1 <0.05

18L-07 6D-2 950 6.5 <1 <0.05 870 6.7 <1 <0.05

18L-08 5C-1 470 7.3 <1 <0.05 420 7.3 <1 <0.05

50




Sample date


E.C. at 25ºC pHLipophilic substances

Ammonia E.C. at 25ºC pHLipophilic substances

Ammonia

μS/cm mg/l mg/l μS/cm mg/l mg/l

Maximum allowable concentrations per RD

140/2003 (Annex I)2,500 6.5-9.5 1 0.5 2,500 6.5-9.5 1 0.5

18L-09 4C-2 470 7.8 <1 <0.05 480 7.9 <1 <0.05

18L-10 4C-1 660 7.0 <1 <0.05 690 7.1 <1 <0.05

SAT-01 6D-3 760 7.1 <1 <0.05 760 7.0 <1 <0.05

SAT-02 7D-1 830 6.4 <1 <0.05 880 6.7 <1 <0.05

SAT-03 7C-1 1,050 6.9 <1 0.38 680 6.7 <1 <0.05

15L-01 7E-1 1,170 7.2 <1 <0.05 890 7.0 <1 <0.05

15L-02 7E-2 760 6.6 <1 <0.05 760 7.7 <1 <0.05

15L-03 7E-3 1,900 6.8 <1 <0.05 1,670 7.1 <1 <0.05

15L-04 8F-1 1,730 7.4 <1 <0.05 1,640 7.3 <1 <0.05

15L-05 9G-1 2,400 7.0 <1 <0.05 1,200 7.0 <1 <0.05

15L-06 10F-1 3,300 6.9 <1 <0.05 3,400 7.0 <1 <0.05

15L-07 8E-1 1,280 8.0 <1 <0.05 1310 7.3 <1 <0.05

15L-08 7E-4 910 6.8 <1 0.46 870 6.8 <1 0.16

15L-09 8D-2 450 7.4 <1 <0.05 480 7.6 <1 <0.05

15L-10 8D-1 1,010 6.8 <1 <0.05 1,010 7.0 <1 <0.05

The results are interpreted using the criteria set out in the Dutch regulation and in RD 140/2003 as reference.

None of the samples from the piezometers in the T123 area revealed any aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbons in solution (BTEX, PAH or C10-C40 hydrocarbons).

As for the samples taken from piezometers in other ar-eas, the results were all within normal values. The only reading of note is the continued high ammonia con-centrations (1.7-2.7 mg/l) in the water samples from pi-ezometers 2C-1 and 2D-1, and which seem to originate from the surface water in the de la Vega stream and

51

the Jarama River, respectively. A small concentration of ammonia (0.16 mg/l) was also detected in piezometer 7E-4, which is located in the cow shed that can still be found within the airport complex, in the SE corner be-tween the threshold of the old runway 15R/33L and the new runway 15L/33R.

In general there was a decline in the free phase with respect to 2008 and 2009, as a consequence of the decontamination activities that were carried out.

The piezometric levels in general, and for the entire environmental monitoring network, exhibited seasonal variations in line with rainfall and the progression of the water year.

Trend in free-phase hydrocarbons

52


Waste

The numerous activities that take place at the Madrid-Barajas Airport generate both hazardous and non-haz-ardous waste:

TYPE OF WASTE SOURCE

NO

N-H

AZA

RD

OU

S W

AST

E

• Paper and cardboard

• Scrap metal

• Wood

• Plant waste

• Glass

• Plastic

• Tires

• Packaging

• Liquids and liquid-like substances

• Perishables

• Inert waste

• Rubble

• Toner

• Purifier sludge

• Others (waste that cannot be sorted and is sent to a landfill)

• Cleaning of terminals and washrooms

• Restaurants and businesses

• Offices

• Facility maintenance and landscaping

• Taken from passengers in compliance with flight

safety rules

HA

ZAR

DO

US

WA

STE

• Electrical and electronic equipment

• Contaminated absorbent material

• Contaminated empty packaging

• Used oil

• Oil filters

• Lead batteries

• Aerosols

• Anti-freeze

• Fluorescent bulbs

• Medical waste

• Oily water

• Oily sludge

• Degraded fuel

• Halons

• Leachate

• Ammonium sulfate

• Maintenance of terminals, vehicles, facilities,

power stations, etc.

• Cleaning of effluent treatment facilities (OWSs,

grease separators, etc.)

• Training of firefighting personnel

• Medical service

• Storage of waste from old dump site

• Liquid effluent treatment plant

53

This waste is handled by certified waste management and transportation companies, as required by law. The airport also has an internal waste handling division.

The Madrid-Barajas Airport has eight waste sorting ar-eas (ZR), located both landside and airside in Terminals 1, 2 and 3 and Terminals 4 and T4S. The waste dropped off at these ZRs is received, identified, classified, pre-pared and temporarily stored in containers specific to each type of waste. The number of containers available in each area is de-termined by the amount of waste that is received. All of the containers are properly identified and labeled as required by law.

These ZRs do not accept radioactive, explosive, infec-tious, unsorted or unidentified materials.

The frequency with which the waste is removed by out-side companies is determined by the storage capacities of the ZRs and the time limit specified by applicable regulations.

The Madrid-Barajas Airport also has a facility called a transfer plant, where normal solid waste, reusable waste and hazardous waste can be centrally and inter-nally handled before being hauled away by authorized waste management and transportation companies.

Also, in order to improve the handling of the non-haz-ardous waste generated at the airport, and in compli-ance with the Madrid City Hall’s Ordinance on Clean-ing Public Spaces and Handling Waste of 27 February 2009, which sets minimum percentages for the recov-ery of non-hazardous waste, the airport has had, since 1 September 2010, a manual sorting station. In it, the Waste drop-off area

Solid waste transfer station

Recycling point for solid waste

54


reusable components of the non-hazardous waste that is picked up throughout the airport are separated out manually by plant operators. In addition, there is an agreement with the Iberia Association of Parents of Handicapped Persons (APMIB) for the work to be per-formed by disabled personnel.

Thus, until 1 September 2010, the waste that was stored and compacted by the airport’s internal waste handler prior to removal by the Madrid City Hall was handled by the airport in its entirety, which then conducted a subsequent assessment with the final waste handler in order to achieve the ultimate goal: to sort all of the reus-able waste produced at the airport.

Sorting plant

55

To complement the start-up of the sorting plant, and to maximize the percentage of waste that is segregated at the airport, there is a plan to set aside new areas in 2011 specifically for companies that perform their activities to drop off sorted waste.

These areas, called yards, will be distributed throughout the airport complex so that they are close to the facili-ties and respond to the needs of the companies. A total of 12 landside yards will be designated, 6 in T123 and another 6 in T4, and 15 airside, 3 in T123, 8 in T4 and another 4 in T4S.

Waste Rest

Biomethanation or biofuel in cement plants

Zero waste

Environmental Benefits

Sorting plant

Paper/cardboard Packaging Glass

Energy production Compost production

Increase segregation of waste

From 13% in 2009 to 24% in 2010

Recycled

56


NON-HAZARDOUS SEGREGATED RECOVERED WASTE 2007 2008 2009 2010

Paper and cardboard 422.94 856.51 859.06 1,227.09

Scrap metal 53.86 59.72 133.19 78.55

Wood 24.40 96.23 84.29 123.54

Plant waste 98.20 75.83 71.19 85.82

Glass 38.88 36.16 70.39 102.86

Packaging 132.88 218.91 71.62 748.11

Tires 4.90 6.16 8.80 8.68

Inert waste 12.36 9.38 (*) (*)

Rubble (*) (*) 92.54 112.34

Toner 41 205 90 30

Recoverable material (sorted) (*) (*) (*) 24.48

OTHER NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE 2007 2008 2009 2010

Others (sorted waste) 10,933.23 10,595.07 9,525.24 8,135.52

Liquids and liquid-like substances 608.26 551.96 549.94 370.54

Perishables 68.92 89.70 41.16 31.68

Inert 335.88 330.07 174.82 173.20

Purifier sludge (sewage plant) (*) (*) 128.78 175.40

Data on non-hazardous waste generated

The following table shows the non-hazardous waste generated from 2007 to 2010.

(*) This type of waste was not generated or handled in this year

57

Tons

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

NHW SEGREGATED IN 2009-2010 (MT)

Paper & cardboard

Scrap metal Wood Plant waste Glass Tires Packaging Rubble

2009 868.42 133.19 84.29 71.19 70.39 8.80 71.62 92.54

2010 1,227.09 78.55 123.54 85.82 102.82 8.68 748.11 112.34

As the above graph and tables show, there was a sig-nificant variation in the amount of non-hazardous waste segregated in 2010 versus 2009, especially as concerns paper and cardboard, glass, packaging, wood and plant waste, which saw increases of 42.84%, 46.13%, 944.55%, 46.57% and 20.55%, respectively.

The amount corresponding to other waste dropped by 14.59%.

This significant increase in the amount sorted was due to the new measures implemented, as described ear-lier.

58


% N

HW

Seg

rega

ted

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

% OF NHW SEGREGATED BY MONTH IN 2009 AND 2010

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

18% 19%

12%13%

10%

13%

10% 10%

15% 15% 15%

11%

13%

16%

22%

19%

24%

20%21%

22%

26%

32%33%

34%

59

PERCENTAGE OF NHW SORTED IN 2010 (MT)

Paper and cardboard

TiresPackagingRubble

Scrap metalWood

GlassPlant waste

49.3%

3.2%5.0%3.5%

4.1%

0.3%

30.1%

4.5%

Likewise, the next graph shows a reduction in the gen-eration of liquids and liquid-like substances of 48.42%, and of perishable waste on 23.03%, due primarily to im-proved passenger awareness concerning baggage safety rules. Of note also is the fact that in 2010, the number of passengers recorded dropped by 2.94% with respect to the previous year.

In 2010, the amount of paper and cardboard sorted amounted to 49.3% of the total recyclable waste han-dled at the airport.

Tons

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

60


NON-RECOVERABLE WASTE GENERATED IN 2009 AND 2010 (MT)

Other Liquids & similar(*) Perishable(**) Inert Purifier sludge

2009 9,525.24 549.94 41.16 174.82 128.78

2010 8,135.52 370.54 31.68 173.20 175.40

(*) Liquids and liquid-like substances: this waste started to be generated in 2007 following the enactment of new security regulations for the transportation of liquids in carry-on baggage (EC Regulation 1546/2006).(**) Starting in November 2010, the public company Sanidad Animal y Servicios Ganaderos (TRAGSEGA) was charged with the re-moval and destruction of those food items of animal origin seized from the personal baggage of passengers originating in non-EU countries, pursuant to Regulation 206/2009.

61

HAZARDOUS WASTE 2007 2008 2009 2010

Alkaline or Ni-Cd batteries 0.46 1.582 (*) (*)

Medical 1.18 1.10084 1.4353 0.88715

Electrical and electronic equipment 18.62 28.16 2.58 (*)

Absorbents 15.42 13.125 13.32 10.86

Used oil 3.88 1.63 7.14 (*)

Empty contaminated packaging 2.29 1.68 1.29 0.58

Fluorescent bulbs 8.30 7.041 7.23 6.17

Oil filters 1.11 0.53 0.52 0.24

Anti-freeze 4.36 (*) (*) (*)

Lead batteries 9.10 12.28 49.57 24.14

Non-halogenated solvents 0.38 (*) (*) (*)

Oily water 345.04 159.38 (*) 188.54

Aerosols 25.26 25.89 17.14 14.92

Degraded fuel (*) 2.272 0.428 (*)

Oily sludge (*) 203.48 (*) (*)

Halons (*) (*) 0.21 (*)

Leachate (*) (*) 7.36 (*)

Ammonium sulfate (*) (*) 6.5 (*)

Discarded equipment with HCFC, HFC (160211) (*) (*) 4.19 4.70

Discarded equipment different from that specified in codes 160209 to 160213 (LER 160214)

(*) (*) 3.52 9.12

Hazardous components removed from discarded equipment (LER 160215)

(*) (*) (*) 11.81

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED

The following table shows the types of hazardous waste generated from 2007 to 2010 (in MT):

(*) This type of waste not generated or handled in this year.

62


60

50

40

30

20

10

Tons

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED IN 2009 AND 2010 (MT)

Absorbents Aerosols Pb batteries MedicalEmpty contam.

packagingOil filters

Fluores-cent bulbs

Elect. & electronic

2009 13.32 17.14 49.57 1.44 1.29 0.52 7.25 28.30

2010 10.86 14.92 24.15 0.89 0.58 0.24 6.18 25.63

As regards the generation of hazardous waste, the year 2010 saw a considerable reduction in the generation of all types of hazardous wastes handled with respect to 2009. The most notable reductions corresponded to lead batter-ies (51.29%), empty contaminated packaging (55.04%) and oil filters (53.84%). Among the reasons for this drop are the special maintenance activities that were carried out

in 2009 to replace the SAI in T4, and which increased the amount of batteries generated. It should be noted as well that in 2010, oily water was generated due to the cleaning of the oil-water separators, which involved emptying the waste contained in them.

63

PERCENTAGES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLED IN 2010

Oily water

Cont. empty packagingOil filtersFluorescent bulbsElect. & electronic equip.

Equipment with HCFC, HCFOther discarded equipment

AbsorbentsAerosols

MedicalPb batteries

69.3%

4%

8.9%

0.3%0.2%0.1%

5.5%

2.3%

4.3%

1.7%

3.4%

The oily water generated by cleaning the oil-water sepa-rators (OWS) accounted for 69.3% of the total amount

of hazardous waste handled at the airport in 2010.

64


Consumption of natural resources

One of today’s most pressing problems is the depletion of natural resources. That is why, and due to their limi-ted nature, the consumption of these resources must be optimized and measures adopted that result in their sustainable use.

The consumption of natural resources is regarded with the utmost importance at the airport. As a consequence, said consumption is periodically tracked and monitored with the resulting data analyzed to propose corrective actions and implement measures to minimize this use.

The most significant natural resources consumed at the airport are:

Network and well water

Electricity

Fuel

Paper

65

The following graph shows the trend in water consumption over the last three years:

RATIO OF POTABLE WATER USAGE (liters/

passenger)

2008 2009 2010

26.62 24.54 23.09

City water (m3)2008 2009 2010

1,353,945 1,184,992 1,151,385

Water consumption

Potable water

In 2008, 2009 and 2010, the amount of city network water consumed dropped in parallel with the number of

passengers. The increase in the price of water and the decrease in the amount of construction at the airport might also account for this reduction.

1,400,000

1,350,000

1,300,000

1,250,000

1,200,000

1,150,000

1,100,000

1,050,000

CITY WATER CONSUMPTION 2008 - 2010

200820092010

m3

66


In 2008, the process to connect the airport to the city of Madrid’s reclaimed water network was begun. This water is expected to be used for irrigation and for washing down the platforms. In 2010, the necessary actions were carried out to adapt the facilities for the transition.

Well water

Water extracted from wells is used to irrigate green ar-eas. In 2010, the consumption of well water for land-scaping purposes was similar to that of recent years. The breakdowns and defects detected in the network, and which raised consumption in 2009, were corrected. Among the measures adopted in 2010 to minimize the use of well water is the implementation of drip irriga-tion systems to replace sprinklers over much of the land-scaped area, such as the State Pavilion.

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

WELL WATER CONSUMPTION 200820092010

m3

Well water (m3)

2008 2009 2010

31,434 46,286 36,247

67

Electricity consumption

Electricity usage at the airport stems mainly from the operation of :

Climate control facilities

Lighting systems

Its use is not exclusive to buildings, since much of it is devoted to powering platform operations (lighting).

Among the various plans proposed to avoid or optimize its use, the easiest to implement is to reduce consump-tion by adopting two highly efficient principles:

Savings

Energy efficiency

The efficiency improvements carried out and aimed at continuous improvement are framed within the prin-ciples of Aena’s environmental and energy policy. The measures adopted and listed below have helped the airport to:

Reduce its energy needs

Lower the associated environmental impact

As the table below on electricity usage shows, the en-ergy savings measures carried out in 2009 involving the airport’s low-voltage installation have significantly de-creased this consumption:

Circuits on timers and light activated,

SAI in ECO mode,

400-Hz converters in standby mode in T123.

Measures were also implemented in 2010:

Optimization of baggage handling system circuits;

Expansion of the use of timers and photosensors to control circuits;

Regulation of washroom lighting in T123;

Control of lighting in the transformer centers, State Pavilion, signalman’s building, airfield maintenance building, central FFS, and others.

Closing of modules in P2 and P4 parking lots;

Replacement of 58W fluorescent bulbs by 51W bulbs.

These measures achieved a savings of 8,241,000 KWh/year, equivalent to 3,213 tons of CO2 emis-sions.

Total electricity consumption 2008 334.99 Gw h



The airport obtains more than 50% of its energy from the cogeneration plant located within the airport com-plex. This plant features higher efficiency and better per-formance than a conventional system. In 2010, of the 316,923,664 KWh consumed, 211,420,257 KWh were generated at the cogeneration plant.

3. FUEL CONSUMPTION

In 2010, the amount of fuel used by both gasoline and

The amount of fuel used in boilers was 2,018,998 l, slightly above 2009’s amount due to the weather conditions experienced in 2010.

The amount of fuel used in the diesel generators, 6,212 l, decreased due to the absence of incidents/emergencies during the year.

diesel vehicles was 187,689.9 liters. The amount of fuel used per vehicle was 1,259.6 liters, a value similar to that of previous years.

In coming years, a pilot project using electric vehicles is expected to be implemented. There are also plans to build natural gas stations to supply the hybrid cars that are currently available, which will allow for a reduc-tion in the emissions produced by Aena vehicles at the airport.

68


2007 VEHICLE FLEET FUEL (l) CONSUMPTION RATIO (l/veh)

2008 148 182,329.63 1,231.96

2009 159 193,026.56 1,214

2010 149 187,689.9 1,259.6

Fuel used in boilers 2008 1,545,039 l



Fuel used in electrical generators 2008 9,434 l



69

Flora

Far from being a hostile medium, the airport is proud to showcase a rich variety of plant life, proof that air transportation and the preservation of the environment are compatible, as specified in the principles of Aena’s environmental policy.

Within the airport complex, there are some 92 hectares of vegetation. These can be categorized based on the habitats they support:

1.- RIPARIAN: alongside the three streams and the river that line and cross the runways there are species like ash (Fraxinus sp), willow (Salix sp), tule (Scirpus lacus-tris), reed (Phragmites australis), poplar (Populus) and elm (Ulmus minor).

2.- FOREST: located primarily between runways 33R/15L and 33L/15R, it consists of stone pine (Pinus pinea), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and cypress (Cupres-sus arozonica). From 2009 to 2010, this woodland area was expanded by repopulating Rey Road and the T4 taxi stand with 2,700 stone pines. Cypress trees (Cupressus sempervirens var. stricta) and priv-ets (Ligustrum vulgaris) were also planted next to the State Pavilion.

3.- ORNAMENTAL SPACES: located landside, at the en-trances to each of the terminals, and even airside, along-side different buildings like the State Pavilion or the fal-conry facilities. Among the most important species are the strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo), the London plane tree (Platanus x hispanica), tree of heaven (Ailanthus al-tissima), the blak locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), the Ju-das tree (Cercis siliquastrum), the salt cedar (Tamarix sp), the river red gum tree (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), the Russian silverberry (Eleagnus angustifolia), Himalayan

cedar (Cedrus deodora), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp), magnolia (Magnolia multiflora) and olive trees (Olea eu-ropea), among others.

In 2010, various wild privets (Ligustrum vulgare) and cypresses (Cupressus sempervirens var. Stricta) were planted at the airside State Pavilion.

4.- FIELDS OF AROMATIC PLANTS: Mediterranean species like rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) were used to re-store neglected areas inside the airport complex.

5.- REPLANTING EMBANKMENTS ON AIRPORT RUNWAYS: there are grasses of all types in these areas, though alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and sainfoin (Onobry-chis sativa) prevail.

The vegetation present at the Madrid-Barajas Airport fulfills important functions, such as: soil stabilization, its influence on climate and water, the increase in the di-versity of landscapes, the formation of visual and acous-tic barriers, delimiting spaces and providing a habitat for wildlife.

No less important is the role it plays in heading off cli-mate change by providing sinks for CO

2 emissions. In 2010, the approximate amount of carbon that is offset by the amount of vegetation present at the airport was calculated using a method based on research by INIA and published in the book “Producción de biomasa y fi-jación de CO2 por los bosques españoles” [Biomass pro-duction and CO2 fixation in Spain’s forests] (Montero, Gregorio, et.al. INIA 2005).

70


COMPENSATORY MEASURES

The compensatory measures associated with the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement (Expansion of the Madrid-Barajas Airport System) involve various environ-mental activities that are being carried out in municipali-ties bordering the airport.

In 2010, the following actions were carried out:

LOCATION ACTIONS TAKEN DURATION SPECIES

Shores of the la Galga stream (Salamanca de

Jarama and Valdetorres de

Jarama districts)

Completion of the project’s maintenance phase

(15 Ha)

First quarter of 2010

Black poplar (Populus nigra), alamo (Populus alba), ash tree (Fraxinus angustifolia), white willow (Salix alba), sauces (Salix

fragilis), French tamarisk (Tamarix gallica) and brooms (Retama sphaerocarpa).

Right bank of the Jarama River

between Belvis del Jarama and El Puente

de San Fernando

Completion of the project’s maintenance phase

(23.6 Ha)

First quarter of 2010

Alamo (Populus alba), ash tree (Fraxinus angustifolia), black poplar (Populus nigra), common dogwood (Cornus sanguinea), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), spindle (Euonymus europaeus), buckthorn (Frangula agnus), honeysuckle (Lonicera implexa), wild rose (Rosa

canina), wild pear (Pyrus pyraster) and shrubby willows ( Salix eleagnos, salix fragilis and salix purpurea).

Hillsides and river banks in Torremocha

del Jarama and surrounding areas

Completion of work to restore vegetation cover,

corresponding to phase I of the project

390 Ha (77 Ha of river banks and 312 of hilsides)

Until late January 2010

Stone pine (Pinus halepensis), holm oak (Quercus ilex subs. ballota), gall oak (Quercus faginea), maritime pine (Pinus pinaster), cork oak

(Quercus suber), fig (Ficus carica), maple (Acer monspessulanum), turpentine tree (Pistacia terebinthus), olive tree (Olea europaea var. Sylvestris), strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo), sorbus (Sorbus torminalis), Iberian pear (Pyrus bourgaeana) and wild plum tree

(Prunus spinosa).

Santorcaz radio station, property of the Ministry of

Defense in the CAM

Replanting 60 Ha of forestMay 2010-

January 2011Stone pine (Pinus halepensis), holm oak (Quercus ilex Subs. ballota)

and gall oak (Quercus faginea).

Peñabermeja, property of the

Ministry of Defense of the CAM.

Reforesting 59 HaMay 2010-

March 2011Encinas (Quercus ilex Subs. ballota), acebuches (Olea europaea var.

Sylvestris) y almendros (Prunus dulces).

71

their flight paths, thus diminishing the presence near runway areas of those species that pose the greatest safety risk. To carry out these activities, over 60 birds of prey have been raised in captivity and specifically trained for this purpose by professional falconers. Trained birds of prey are released during daylight hours on a daily basis. When other birds detect the presence of a predator (fal-con) in the area, they immediately flee. This avoids the need for the indiscriminate culling of these birds. Other deterrents include the use of detonating primers, gas cannons, nets and trap cages.

All reported incidents are logged in the Environment Di-vision’s database and classified as follows:

1.- Sightings: refers to sightings of live birds (in flight or on the ground) in or around the airport complex, either on the airfield or in flight paths (hazard areas for air-craft). Sightings are usually made by pilots, the control tower, runway and platform services or by the wildlife control service itself. 2.- Strikes: refers to reports of strikes, either from the airlines or the control tower, as indicated by the presence of bird remains on the runways or on the aircraft themselves, which may or may not exhibit damage.

Fauna

In and around the Madrid-Barajas Airport there are differ-ent types of areas of interest to wildlife. To the east is the cereal steppe habitat of the Jarama and Henares rivers (ES0000139), to the south various protected wetlands, as well as Los Cortados and Cantiles of the Jarama and Henares rivers (ES0000142), and to the west the Zepa Soto de Viñue-las (ES0000012) and the Monte de El Pardo (ES0000011).

These spaces merge with other microhabitats inside the airport, which include:

Wooded area, between the runways.

Grassland (plantings of pratense species) and fruit trees, between and bordering the runways.

Wetlands and streams.

Buildings and hangars (terminals, etc....)

Construction sites.

This variety of habitats provides the conditions for diverse species of birds, insects, reptiles and mam-mals to thrive in these areas. So as to reconcile this diversity of wildlife with aviation safety, the airport, in concert with various relevant agencies, plans pre-ventive measures every year, depending on the time of year and species. These measures include spray-ing, mowing, removal of nests, installing deterrent devices, etc. The airport has also had a wildlife con-trol service since 1970, which has over 100 birds of prey raised in captivity whose primary function is to establish danger conditions that are easily identifi-able by birds so as to keep them away from hazard-ous areas and to reroute

5.- Other wildlife-related incidents: miscellane-ous incidents with non-bird wildlife or with birds outside of the airfield or flight paths.

So as to objectively quantify the efficiency of the bird control measures noted above, various reports are draft-ed on a weekly, monthly and annual basis that analyze each of the incidents reported (sightings, bird strike notifications, impacts and removals).

All of this information is used to calculate the so-called index 10,000 reference value, defined as the number of bird strikes that occur inside the airport for every 10,000 operations:

10,000 index = (no. of strikes * 10,000) /no. of total operations recorded during the year.

72


3.- Removal of bird remains: incidents in which the remains of birds are removed from the runways or adjacent areas without any bird strikes reported by airlines or the control tower. In general, these bird removals are done by the wildlife control service or by the runway and platform services during their routine inspections. Generally the birds removed are dead, but on occasion injured birds are removed and handed over to wildlife rehabilitation centers of the Community of Madrid.

4.- Reported bird strikes: notifications of birds strik-ing aircraft, mainly by airlines or the control tower, in which no bird remains are found on the runway or surrounding areas and there are no signs of impact on airplanes, meaning the bird strike can-not be confirmed.

73

Due to this increase in reports involving insect-eating birds and the concern it caused, methods were analyzed to control their populations. As a result, in 2010 the Madrid-Barajas Airport implemented a pioneering expe-riment called “Biological control of mosquitos in the airport’s wetlands and streams”, in an environmentally friendly effort to eliminate potential food sources for birds. This pilot program yielded a significant reduction in the number of incidents, there being no strike notifi-cations in the months when the spraying was in effect.

The reason for the increase in the number of incidents reported after 2008 is that until 2007, the information on the incidents was incomplete, and every incident that was reported, regardless of whether it occurred inside or outside the airport complex, was included in determi-ning the 10,000 index. Starting in 2008, complete infor-mation was requested from airlines and the reporting criteria regarding incidents with wildlife was expanded to include small birds (insect-eating species).

10,000 INDEX FOR BIRD STRIKES FROM 2005 TO 2010 AT THE MADRID-BARAJAS AIRPORT

10,0

00 In

dex

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1.11

1.86

1.30

0.60

2.57

1.70

74


14

12

10

8

6

4

2

June July August September October

Insect-eating birds 2009Insect-eating birds 2010

STRIKES

8

12

8

5

8

0

1

3

0 0

60

50

40

30

20

10



SIGHTINGS

43

56

19

811

31

6

24

75

4

3

2

1



STRIKE REPORTS

3

2 2

0 0 0 00 0 0

fies the risk to air navigation posed by each of the bird species sighted at the airport and takes into account data on the presence of birds, incidents recorded in recent years and their repercussions.

In order to reduce these risks, several mitigating meas-ures were defined and implemented, in addition to measures already in place. At this meeting emphasis was also placed on the need for airlines to submit a complete and comprehensive report of any incidents detected by Spain’s Aviation Safety Agency (AESA).

Also in 2010, on the occasion of the airport’s certification, an exhaustive study was conducted of the risks that the presence of birds represents to air navigation. To this end, a working session was held in June 2010 involving various air operators, AESA, pilots and aircraft and engine manu-facturers. The results of this risk analysis were compiled in a tolerance matrix, which is contained in document MAD-PGS-01/RES-13/10 (30/09/2010). This matrix classi-

76


STRIKE PROBABILITY

SEV

ERIT

Y

EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE (1)

IMPROBABLE/ EXTREMELY REMOTE (2)

REMOTE (3)OCCASIONAL/

REAS. PROBABLE (4)FREQUENT (5)

CA

TAST

RO

PHIC

(A

)H

AZA

RD

OU

S (B

)

Black vulture

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

/ M

AJO

R (

C)

Griffin vultureWhite stork

LOW

SI

GN

IFIC

AN

CE

/ M

INO

R (

D)

Pigeon, Wood pigeon

INSI

GN

IFIC

AN

T (E

)

Hoopoe, Booted eagle, Short-toed eagle, Montagu’s harrier,

Bonelli’s eagle, Stone curlew, Lapwing,

Meadow pipit, Crested lark, European nightjar,

Red-necked nightjar, Jackdaw, Crane, Short-eared owl, Barn owl,

Woodlark, Little bustard, Magpie, Cattle egret,

Black-headed gull, Lesses black-backed gull

Stock pigeon, Barn swallow, Western marsh harrier, Mallard, House

martin, Long-eared owl, Eagle owl, Crested lark, Pigeon hawk, Grey heron, House sparrow, Gyr falcon, Peregrine

falcon, Goldfinch, White wagtail, Owl, Linnet, Red-legged partridge,

Green woodpecker, Common kestrel, Caspian

gull, Black kite, Red kite, Common buzzard,

Spotless starling

Common swift

77

mine whether or not the aspect has gone up or down. This reference value may be a legal limit, historically gen-erated quantities, etc. The most relevant environmental aspects identified at the airport are: noise originating from airport activities and atmospheric emissions of pollutants from aircraft take-offs and landings and from traffic movements on the platform (both of which are indirect aspects).

The tables below shows a listing of environmental aspects and an assessment of their significance over the past four years.

Aspect assessment

The airport has a system in place for annually identifying all of the environmental aspects associated with its activ-ity, both from normal operations and from abnormal or emergency conditions that would have a potential impact if they were to occur.

Once identified, and so as to ensure that standards for monitoring them are in place and that they are taken into account when defining goals, they are evaluated. This makes it possible to compare them with each other and to identify those with a significant impact on the environ-ment.This is done through representative indicators for assessing their relevance. A reference value is also estab-lished for each and compared to the indicator to deter-

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

INDICATOR 2007 ASSESSMENT 2008 ASSESSMENT 2009 ASSESSMENT 2010 ASSESSMENT

Noise from takeoff and landing

operations (indirect)

Leq airplane day Leq airplane afternoon

Leq airplane night

Significant Significant Significant Significant

Boiler emissionsValue of most

restrictive legal parameter

Significant Not Significant Not Significant Significant

Emissions from aircraft on takeoff

and landing operations (indirect)

Fuel used / no. of operations


Emissions from platform movements

of Aena vehicles

Fuel used / no. of vehicles

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Atmospheric emissions from diesel

generatorsTime in operation Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

78




Atmospheric emissions from FFS

drills (direct)Liters of fuel/drill Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Emissions from movements of

outside vehicles (indirect)

Fuel used / no. of vehicles


Paper/cardboard Kg/employee Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Glass Kg/employee Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Non-recoverable waste

Kg/passenger Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Tires Kg/vehicle Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Bulky waste m3/employee Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Scrap metal Kg/employee Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Plant waste Kg/Ha Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Toner units/employee Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Packaging Kg/passenger Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Perishable waste Kg/passenger No data Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Liquids and liquid-like substances

Kg/passenger Not Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant

Non-recoverable inert waste

Kg/passenger No data Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Recoverable inert waste

Kg/passenger No data Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

79



Purifier sludge Kg/operation Not generated Not Significant Significant Not Significant

Empty packaging that held HW

Kg/employee Significant Significant Significant Significant

Fluorescent bulbs Kg/m2 of facilities Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Oil filtersKg/vehicles x no.

operationsSignificant Significant Significant Significant

Used oil Liters/operation Not Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant

Oil/water mixture Kg/operation Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Halons Kg/operation Not generated Not generated Significant Not generated



Rags and materials soaked with oil,

grease, etc.Kg/vehicle Significant Significant Significant Significant

Medical wastekg/passengers x

employeesSignificant Significant Significant Significant

Lead batteriesKg/vehicle x operation


Solvents Kg/vehicle Not Significant Not generated Not Significant Not generated

Electrical & electronic equipment

Kg/employee Significant Significant Not Significant Significant

Anti-freeze Kg/vehicle Significant Significant Not Significant Not generated

(*)This is waste that started to be generated in 2007 following the enactment of new security laws for transporting liquids in carry-on luggage (EC Regulation 1546/2006).

80




Rags and materials soaked with oil,

grease, etc.Kg/vehicle Significant Significant Significant Significant

Medical wasteKg/passengers x

employeesSignificant Significant Significant Significant

Lead batteriesKg/vehicle x operation


Solvents Kg/vehicle Not Significant Not generated Not Significant Not generated

Electrical & electronic equipment

Kg/employee Significant Significant Not Significant Significant

Anti-freeze Kg/vehicle Significant Significant Not Significant Not generated

Ni-Cd batteries Kg/vehicle Significant Significant Not Significant Not generated

Oily sludge Not generated Not Significant Not Significant Not generated

Aerosols Kg/passenger Not generated Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Disused vehicles VFU/employee Sin datos Significant Not Significant Significant

Discharge of waste water to sewage

network (end of line)

Value of most restrictive legal

parameterSignificant Significant Significant Significant


network (Excrement lot)


parameterNot Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant


network (T4 North)


parameterSignificant Not Significant Significant Significant


network (T4 Satellite)


parameterSignificant Significant Significant Significant

81




network (T4 South)


parameterSignificant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Discharge of waste water to sewage network (Control

Tower)


parameterSignificant Not Significant Significant Significant


network (main FFS purifier)


parameterSignificant Not Significant Not Significant

Effluent point deleted

Discharge of airport rain water (36R

threshold)



Discharge of airport rain water (Runway 15L-33R Pump tank)



Discharge of airport rain water (Runway 15L-33R Desander 1)






Discharge of airport rain water (Runway 15L-33R Plataforma)












82




Discharge of airport rain water (Runway

18L-36R Platform OWS)



Discharge of airport rain water (Runway

18L-36R OWS 1)



Discharge of airport rain water (Platform

OWS)


parameterNot Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant

Discharge of airport rain water (Remotos

OWS)



Discharge of airport rain water (PIC area

OWS)



Discharge of airport rain water

(Valdebebas North)




(Valdebebas South)



Discharge of airport rain water (CELA

area)


parameterNo data Not Significant Not Significant

Effluent point deleted

Discharge of airport rain water (Zorreras North & South OWS)



Discharge of airport rain water (Zorreras

South OWS)



Discharge of airport rain water (T4

passenger parking)


parameterNot Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant

83




(T4 taxi stand)


parameterNot Significant Not Significant Not Significant Significant

Discharge of airport rain water (P11 T4 employee parking)


parameterNot Significant Significant Not Significant Significant

Electricity consumption

Kwh/airport surface x no. of operations

Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant

Potable water consumption

m3/passenger Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Boiler fuel consumption

Liters/passenger Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Significant

Paper consumption Kg/employee Significant Significant Significant Not Significant

Diesel consumption by Aena vehicles

Liters/vehicle Significant Significant Significant Significant

Gasoline consumption by Aena vehicles

Liters/vehicle Significant Significant Significant Significant

Compressed natural gas used by vehicles

(**)m3N/ vehicle --- Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Well water consumption for

irrigationm3/ irrigable surface Significant Significant Significant Significant

Fuel consumption by diesel generators

Liters/passenger Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Fuel consumed during live-fire drills

Liters/no. of drills Not Significant Not Significant Not SignificantNo drills

conducted

(**) Aspects identified in 2008 following the initial use of compressed natural gas in the vehicle fleet.

84


Potential aspects

Potential aspects are those that do not occur under nor-mal operating conditions, but that could happen during abnormal or emergency conditions (accidents, fires, etc.).

Potential aspects are evaluated based on the following parameters:

Magnitude of the impact

Probability of occurrence

Depending on the total score obtained, the probabili-ty of occurrence and the consequences stemming from each case, the significance of the impacts is determined. The results from the last four years are as follows:

POTENTIAL ASPECT INDICATOR 2007 ASSESSMENT 2008 ASSESSMENT 2009 ASSESSMENT 2010 ASSESSMENT

Soil contamination from rupture of fuel

tanks

Probability Magnitude


Soil contamination from hazmat spill


Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Soil contamination from rupture

of waste water collecting tanks



Soil contamination from rupture of fire

hydrant network



Water contamination from rupture of fuel

tanks



Water contamination from hazmat spill



Water contamination from rupture

of waste water collecting tanks



85

POTENTIAL ASPECT INDICATOR 2007 ASSESSMENT 2008 ASSESSMENT 2009 ASSESSMENT 2010 ASSESSMENT

Uncontrolled spill due to fire



Uncontrolled spill due to aviation accident



Uncontrolled emissions due to fire



Uncontrolled emissions due to aviation accident



Proliferation of Legionnaires’ disease



Generation of waste due to fire



Generation of waste due to aviation

accident



Emissions of ozone-depleting substances



Emissions of fluorinated

greenhouse gases (***)


– Not Significant Significant Significant

Damage to vegetation due to aviation accident

(***)


– Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Soil contamination from past activities


– – Significant –

(***) Aspects not evaluated in previous periods due to a lack of relevant regulations or to not having been regarded as associated with a given emergency situation.

86

SERCOM (Service for Environmental Monitoring of Companies)

SERCOM, the Service for the Environmental Monitor-ing of Companies, part of the Environment Division, was created in 2001 as part of the certification process for the airport’s Environmental Management System, in keeping with international standard UNE-EN ISO 14001, so as to track the indirect environmental impact of every company that carries out activities within the airport complex.

Over 200 companies at the airport are currently moni-tored, some going back a long time (like some airlines) while some are new to the program.

As for the different types of activities monitored, these are categorized into several groups: airlines, handling activities (cleaning, air cargo and passenger), restau-rants, air catering, fuel suppliers, workshops, conces-sions, construction and maintenance.

The SERCOM working methodology is defined in an internal document of the Environmental Management System called MA-PG-08 Companies. Currently, and af-ter a series of modifications to constantly improve the processes, this procedure is up to Revision 18.

The primary functions of the SERCOM are:

FUNCTIONS OF THE SERCOM

1. Ensure that all airport companies

Know the Madrid-Barajas Airport environmental policy as well as any internal airport procedures that are applicable to them

Comply with existing environmental laws and other internal requirements

Exercise good environmental practices

Minimize their environmental impact

2. Raise employee awareness through

Advising company managers or representatives

Periodic monitoring of activities and facilities

Issuing of good practices manuals, awareness posters, etc.

Organizing contests for best environmental performance

3.- Verify input of centralized and decentralized records and of requests that do not adhere to normal contracting methods. Supervise the suitability of the environmental documentation required in the environmental clauses of technical specifications (Environmental Monitoring Plan [EMP] and Waste Management Plan [WMP])

4. Advise companies on the proper environmental management of their activities

5. Inform companies and quality managers of any non-conformities detected and track corrective actions.

87

The SERCOM working methodology is as shown in the following flow chart:

Centralized records

Decentralized records

- Project committees(List of contracts awarded)

- Send EMP and WMPInterlan communication

conformity EMP and WMP

Request EMP and WMP Centralized record

Send EMP and WMP Centralized record

EMP/WMP Database

MA-PG-00Applicable

Environmental appraisal

MA-PG-00 N/A

CLOSED

Inform of conformity with EMP & WMP after evaluation (EMP:SERCOM; WMP:

Waste Handler)

Decentralized records

Aena

MADRID - BARAJASAIRPORT

FINANCIAL ADMIN OFFICE

CENTRAL OFFICES “La Piovera”

INTRANET

- Records of reports- Bid-winning companies-

Others...SERCOM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEPARTMENTM

Monthly Enu.

Monthly Enu.

List of contracts awarded

88


NC 2009NC 2010

Results of environmental monitoring of com-panies for 2010

The graph below shows the non-conformities (NC) de-tected in 2009 and 2010.

Non-conformities are addressed at periodic meetings with the companies with the most repeat offenses so as to decide on the most suitable corrective actions.

A greater number of non-conformities was detected in 2010 during the periodic environmental monitoring of companies than in 2009.

Most of the non-conformities detected in 2010 involved activities carried out by airlines (either in the mainte-nance of ground equipment or aircraft) and construc-tion companies. This top spot was also held by airlines in 2009.

STATUS NC 2009 - 2010

NC detected NC open NC closed

7

1

6

9

5

4

89

Types of non-conformities: as the chart below shows, most of the non-conformities found in-volved deficiencies in the measures implemented to prevent pollution (45%), in contrast to 2009, when deficiencies associated with waste handling (58%) were the most prevalent. This change in the percentage allotments for the different categories could be due to the publishing and distribution by the SERCOM of manuals that specifically dealt with waste management from an operational and docu-mentary standpoint.

Also worth noting is that there were no documentary deficiencies in 2010, probably due to the exhaustive and constant training conducted by the SERCOM, both dur-ing its periodic inspections and whenever the companies request technical advice from this service.

The non-conformities of an operational nature (both with respect to documentary deficiencies and those in-volving logistics) were detected during the initial, and thorough, SERCOM monitoring cycle, at which time the systems in use were not adequate. Then, as the good practices proposed were implemented, the number of non-conformities gradually decreased. These deficien-cies were then replaced by documentary deficiencies though, as noted earlier, even these are disappearing as companies adopt the good practices recommended by the SERCOM.

Sect

or

1 2 3

NC 2010 BY ACTIVITY

Airlines

Handling

Businesses, restaurants and cateringFuel supply

Construction

Other

90


NC TYPES 2010

Waste handlingSpills in facilitiesDocumentary deficiencies

Discharges

Lack of measures to prevent contamination

36%

7%

14% 14%

33%

22%

45%

0%

0%

0%

NC TYPES 2009


Discharges


57%

15%

14%

14%

91

NC TYPES 2008


Discharges


29%

36%

7%

14%

14%

COMPANY IMPROVEMENTS 2010

Measures for preventing conta-minationWaste handlingOrder and cleanliness

92


Assessment of the companies: improvements

The SERCOM identifies the improvements made at the companies, an improvement being regarded as any ac-tion that has a positive impact on the airport environ-ment. As the following graphs, corresponding to 2009 and 2010, show, last year the improvements detected by

the SERCOM had to do with the types of non-conform-ities detected, since it was in these areas that attention was focused during periodic inspections. in 2009, how-ever, the most significant improvements were in the area of waste handling and represented 75% of the total.

50%

25%

25%

COMPANY IMPROVEMENTS 2009

Waste handlingMeasures for preventing conta-mination

75%

25%

93

94


Environmental awareness activities organized in 2010

Contest of corporate environmental steward-ship 2010

For the second year in a row, a contest on corporate en-vironmental stewardship was held. In keeping with the previous year’s scheme, a theme was chosen for assess-ment, which on this occasion was the “implementation of improvements for preventing contamination”.

Over the course of its periodic and extraordinary inspec-tions during the period in question (June 2009-June 2010), the environmental monitoring of companies service noted all of the incidents and improvements detected that could have an effect on environmental aspects of the airport setting. In this way, after process-ing all of the data and taking as a reference the basis for the contest made known previously to all of the participants, the results were obtained and reported publicly during the events celebrating Environment Day. The winning company, BOMBARDIER TRANSPOR-TATION, received a commemorative trophy sponsored by the winner of the first contest.

Delivery of good practices manuals by the SERCOM

During the past year, all of the companies overseen by the Environmental Monitoring of Companies Service were given a good practices manual, tailored to the activity that each company was involved in. This docu-ment aims to be a guide that lists the potential impacts associated with the various airport activities and their related preventive and corrective actions. It is handed out annually and updated with the latest legal and in-ternal regulatory developments that may affect each of the sectors.

Environmental Communications

Environmental communications The Environment Division of the Madrid-Barajas Airport makes available to the public a service for handling the claims, complaints and information requests of an envi-ronmental nature that are received by the airport through its Environmental Service and Information Office (OFI-MA). The main areas of concern reflected in the communica-tions received involve modifications to flightpaths, con-figuration changes to airport operations, possible viola-tions of AIP procedures, noise data information, and so on.

The OFIMA analyzes and records all of these claims or information requests, handling them centrally and in per-

son from 8am to 5pm. Any calls received after hours are taken by an answering machine and recorded and han-dled the following day.

The means of communication available to the public are:

TelephonePostal mailElectronic mailWebpageWeb-TrakFax

In 2010, a total of 2,793 complaints and information re-quests were recorded through the aforementioned chan-nels.

Complaints and information requests received in 2010 by various channels

E-mailWeb-TrakAnswering machineTelephoneFaxLetter

11,9%

13,8%

16,0%

2,9%

1,155

580

673

359

197

95

96


201020092008

20062007

2,793

4,435

2,872

3,719

6,193

Below is a graph that shows the trend in complaints and information requests over the past five years. As we can see, the volume of communications received was 37%

Of the 2,793 complaints and information requests re-ceived, 2,528 were complaints, 80 were exclusively in-formation requests and 185 both presented a complaint and requested information.

lower than in 2009, 2.8% lower than in 2008, 24.9% lower than in 2007 and 54.9% lower than in 2006.

The month in 2010 in which the most communications were received was September with 330, with December being the lowest volume month at 130.

97

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

MONTHLY COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTS 2006 - 2010

200620072008

20102009

98


Complaints

Nature of complaints

The trend in recent years does not adhere to any particu-lar pattern. In 2010, the two issues that provoked the most complaints were:

1. Maintenance work on the runways, leading to numerous complaints from San Fernando de Hen-ares and Santo Domingo (Algete).

This is because in addition to the scheduled annual maintenance schedule, special work had to be per-formed in 2010 that was essential to maintaining the levels of safety required by airport operations.

This work meant additional nighttime use of run-ways 36R and 33L/15R.

2. The change in airport operations to a south con-figuration.

Of all the complaints received for alleged over-flights, 55.8% were related to the airport operat-ing in a south configuration, which it did for 2,084 hours in 2010, 3% more than in 2009.

CAUSES OF COMPLAINTS IN 2010

South configurationFlyover altitude

Nighttime operations

Noise violation

Route modifications

Atmospheric pollution/smells

Overflight zepas

Change daytime operationsNoise in general

Overflight rep

Overflight arr

Miscellaneous

23.60%

1.20%

1.60%

0.10%

21.40%

4.70%

11.40%

9.90%

4.30%

18.70%

2%

0.90%

99

30

25

20

15

10

5

%

CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TIME IN SOUTH CONFIGURATION 2008-2010

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June July

Aug

ust

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

2008 7.33 7.41 7.34 13.10 14.77 13.11 14.04 15.15 16.27 15.88 15.22 14.88

2009 13.52 15.32 11.85 14.33 17.19 20.80 24.18 24.74 23.96 22.92 22.62 23.10

2010 9.85 22.41 25.28 24.43 24.73 24.38 24.26 24.26 24.21 25.04 23.99 23.79

100


Complaints by municipality

Of all the complaints and information requests handled in 2010, 39% were from the municipality of Algete, 22% from Tres Cantos, 7% from San Fernando de Hen-ares, 6% from San Sebastián de los Reyes, 2% from Tor-rejón de Ardoz, 1% from unknown locations and 23% from other localities. September was the busiest month for complaints, most of which were received from the Santo Domingo development and coinciding with a high number of hours in a south configuration due to pav-ing and lighting work on runway 36L which forced its closing for a significant number of hours (meaning that in a north configuration, takeoffs proceeded in a run-way heading, taking airplanes close to Santo Domingo). Many complaints were also received from this develop-ment in October, also due to being in a south configu-ration. In the other months, the volume of complaints did not register the same maximums as during south configuration operations, as happened in February and March.

ALGETE

Most of the complaints, 38.6% of the total, come from this municipality. The development that made the most complaints was Santo Domingo, with 89%. Complaints from Prado Norte and Algete proper decreased by 84.2% and 40.1%, respectively, with respect to 2009.

Due to south configuration operations, the month of September saw the most complaints at 178, after which the number of complaints started to drop, reaching 42 in December. The year 2010 saw 54% fewer complaints than 2009.

The number of hours in south configuration opera-tions and the paving and lighting work on runway 36L were the main reasons behind the annual peak in complaints.

SAN SEBASTIÁN DE LOS REYES

Accounts for 5.9% of all the communications received in 2010, the most being in July and stemming from the repeated complaints received from the La Granjilla development, mainly over north configuration opera-tions.

TORREJÓN

Represents 2.3% of the total communications received in 2010. The maximum was recorded in September due to south configuration operations.

101

SAN FERNANDO DE HENARES

Comprises 7.2% of all communications. The three months with the most complaints recorded (Febru-ary, March and October) coincided with the most number of hours spent in a south configuration. In November a neighborhood campaign resulted in complaints being filed despite the airport not being in a south configuration an inordinate amount of time.

TRES CANTOS

Represents 21.7% of the total, with all of the com-plaints coming from the Soto de Viñuelas develop-ment, at the northeast of the municipality.

OTHER MUNICIPALITIES

Represent 23.45% of all the communications received in 2010. The months of May and June saw a high number of communications (17.3% and 18.1% respectively of this group’s totals) due to operations in a south configu-ration.

The most represented municipality in this group was Loeches, accounting for 15.7% of the group, followed by El Molar at 13.4%, Madrid and Velilla de San Anto-nio with 11.5% each, El Casar de Talamanca (Guad-alajara) with 5.5%, Arganda with 5%, Cobeña with 4.8%, Colmenar Viejo with 4.4% and Paracuellos del Jarama with 4.2%. Complaints were received from other municipalities but in lower numbers.

TorrejónAlgete

Other municipalities

Tres Cantos

Unknown

San FernandoSS. de los Reyes

2.30%1%

36.80%

23.45%

21.70%

7.20%

5.90%

102


Information requests

A total of 256 information requests were received in 2010 regarding the following:

PERCENTAGE (%) KIND OF INFORMATION REQUESTED

38.3 SOUTH CONFIGURATION

5.3 NOISE EVENTS

35.0 CSAM FLIGHTPATHS OR REPORTS

6.1 ACOUSTIC FOOTPRINT, NMT OR SOUNDPROOFING

15.3 MISCELLANEOUS

INFORMATION REQUESTED BY TYPE

South configurationNoise eventsCSAM Flightpaths/reportsNMT, sound footprint, soundproofingMiscellaneous

38.3%

35%

6.1%

15.3%

5.3%

103

Most of the information requests were from Algete, spe-cifically the Santo Domingo development, with a total of 218. Of these, 119 were in reference to the south con-figuration, 2 to noise events, 91 to CSAM flightpaths and reports and 6 to miscellaneous.

The municipality with the second highest number of requests was San Sebastián de los Reyes with a total of 25. Of these, 6 corresponded to the south configuration, 7 to noise events, 1 to CSAM flightpaths and reports, 4 to questions about the sound footprint, NMT data or soundproofing and 7 to miscellaneous requests.

TYPE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED

Municipality Development South configuration

Noise eventsCSAM flightpaths/

reports

NMT, sound footprint,

soundproofingMisc.

San Sebastian de los Reyes

Town proper 1 1

- 1

Dehesa Vieja 3 1

La Oranilla 1 1 2

- 2

Club de Campo 6 3 3

Algete

Town proper 1 1

Prado Norte 1 3

Santo Domingo 119 2 91 6

ParacuellosTown center 1 2

Altos del Jarama 1

Madrid

Capital 2 12

Alameda de Osuna 2

- 6

Tres CantosTown center 1 1

- 17 1

Bilbao 1

Cabanillas de la Sierra

1 1

Casar, el (Guadalajara)

1 1 1

Chiapas (Mexico) 1

104


*Each information request may involve more than one area

TYPE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED

Municipality Development South configuration

Noise eventsCSAM flightpaths/

reports

NMT, sound footprint,

soundproofingMisc.

Chinchón 1

Colmenar Viejo 2 3

Unknown 6

Espinar (Segovia) 1

Fuente el Saz 2

Helbronn (Germany)

4

Loeches 6 1 4 1 1

Mejorada 2

Molar, el 1 1 1 1

Murcia 1

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

1

Palma de Mallorca

1

Pozuelo de Alarcón

1

San Fernabdo 1 2 1

Tenerife 3

Torremocha 1 1

Valdetorres - 1 1

Venturada Cotos de Monterrey 1

Vigo 1 1

Villalbilla 1 1

105

Environmental awareness activities

Área Expoambiente

The airport engages in activities to raise awareness, to which end it has a purpose-built area housing an exhibi-tion airplane and a hall featuring educational material on the environmental aspects and impacts associated with the airport’s activities. In 2010, the airport also launched a new activity with the incorporation of environmental workshops and guided tours to specific environment-related airport facilities.

Exhibition airplane: this space is conceived for teaching about the measures implemented at the airport to reduce and offset the impacts pro-duced primarily by airplane operations. Its target audience is children, teens and adults. The edu-cational content is adapted to each group’s lev-el, as are the guides’ explanations, information panels, videos and videogames. In 2010 a total

of 377 groups with some 10,400 visitors, a 32.7% increase over the previous year, passed through the space. Most of them were primary school children.

Expoambiente hall: also targeted at various audi-ences, it welcomes students from the first grade to postgraduates. This hall, in addition to focus-ing on the importance of preserving the environ-ment that surrounds us, displays the archeological remains that were discovered during construction to expand T4 and the activities undertaken at the airport to comply with the EIS and minimize the impact of its daily activity.

This space also houses an auditorium where pres-entations and seminars geared to the visitors’ area of interest are given on the work done at the air-port. It received 666 visitors in 19 groups in 2010, 16 more than in 2009,

Environmental workshops: in 2010 a new initia-tive was launched to raise environmental aware-ness. It consisted of workshops that combined aviation with environmental aspects. These activ-ities are aimed at students from 6th grade to sec-ondary school. In 2010, a total of 4 groups with 120 visitors participated in these workshops.

In summary, the year 2010 saw a total of 11,186 visitors from schools, neighborhood associations and all types of groups interested in learning about the environmen-tal challenges facing airports.

106


Other environmental awareness activities

The Environmental Monitoring Service, a part of the Environment Division, gives talks to raise environmen-tal awareness among airport operations personnel. In 2010, these activities were aimed at ramp management personnel, special facilities personnel and the firefight-ing service.

The publication of environmental reports, informative brochures, etc., that are distributed through Aena’s website, at information counters, etc.

The distribution via e-mail to all airport (Aena) personnel of quarterly environmental newsletters.

The conduct of quality surveys to assess the environ-mental surveillance, the environmental monitoring of companies and the oversight provided by the Environ-ment Division.

World Environment Day

Last year the Madrid-Barajas Airport once again observed World Environment Day, taking part in the initiative sponsored by the United Nations, which decreed 5 June as the date of this celebration in an effort to call society’s attention to the need to preserve the environment.

On the occasion of this celebration, the airport hosted a series of environmental activities related to the cho-sen topic from 7 to 11 June. These included visits to the Expoambiente Area over the course of this week, as well as the events that took place on Friday, 11 June in the T2 minitheater. This event was hosted by Ms. Paloma Librero, Chief of the Environment Division, who gave a presentation on the activities that are being carried out at the airport to protect the flora and fauna within the airport complex. Also present at the event was Mr. Pedro Hormigos, Director of Renewable Energies at Unión Fenosa, who discussed the current situation in the ener-gy industry, and Dr. José Soler Rovira, Professor at the Madrid Polytechnic University’s School of Agricultural Engineers, who lectured on the value of biodiversity.

The day concluded with a recycling workshop in the Expoambiente Hall, in which participants were able to make useful objects with recycled materials, like candle holders with cans and bottles, folders and wallets with packaging containers, table mats with cardboard, lamps with plastic bottles, and so on.

All of the event participants and guests received a com-plimentary cactus plant (Haworthia).

107107

Future Outlook

Future outlook

In keeping with the strategic action plans set out by Aena in its environmental and energy policy, the Ma-drid-Barajas airport is engaging in initiatives intended to foster the environmental sustainability of its facilities and to improve energy efficiency.

Particularly noteworthy are the efforts made to improve sorting, and thus the reuse of non-hazardous materials, through the construction of a sorting plant where waste is sorted manually and which has allowed for the sort-ing of packaging and pulp products to increase by up to 24%. Still pending is the construction of new sorting areas for use by companies, both airside and landside, and which will facilitate the sorting of waste at the point of origin even more.

The principles of Aena’s energy policy have materialized through various initiatives implemented at the airport and which managed to save over eight million kilowatts in 2010 thanks to a slew of energy-saving measures. The equivalent savings in CO2 emissions was 3,213 tons. In financial terms, the savings amounted to 900,000 euros. The energy-saving measures applied at Madrid-Barajas will continue in coming years with the implementation of energy-efficient systems and renewable energies, the optimization of existing systems and the monitoring and control of electricity consumption.

In 2010, the airport started to calculate the carbon foot-print resulting from its activities, as well as the tons of CO2 offset by its forest cover. These preliminary stud-ies will allow the Madrid-Barajas Airport to take part in coming years in the Airport Carbon Accreditation Pro-gram (European standard for airports that determines their efficiency in minimizing greenhouse gases).

108

Future outlook

The airport contributes to preserving the various ecosys-tems that exist within the airport complex, restoring ne-glected areas and maintaining existing ones while con-tinuing to ensure air safety. The wooded areas, which occupy a surface area of 90 hectares, the landscaped terminal areas, the meadows between the runways and the river habitats comprise a veritable green lung within the airport complex.

In neighboring towns, where the compensatory meas-ures associated with the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement are being carried out, the airport is replant-ing and restoring neglected areas in concert with the Community of Madrid. In 2010, over 120 Ha of trees was planted in the towns of Santorcaz and Peñaberme-ja and the work to restore 390 Ha in the hills and rivers of Torremocha del Jarama was completed.

As part of the process to certify the airport, a method was developed for analyzing the risk associated with the presence of birds in the airport complex. A set of meas-ures was developed, as were the bases for a working group that will strive to control any potential incidents involving birds.

Lastly we note that reducing the annoyances caused by noise continues to be a primary concern of the Madrid-Barajas Airport. A new system called Web-Trak, avail-able since 2010 on Aena’s webpage to anyone interest-ed, shows the flightpaths taken by airplanes arriving at and departing from the Madrid-Barajas Airport, as well as the resulting noise levels. The improvement in opera-tions and in their control through the implementation of precision aviation routes, the consensus from all par-ties involved in aviation activities through the creation of working and study groups, as well as the monitoring and control of noise levels continue to be essential to minimizing the acoustic impact on the environment.

109

Glossary

Glossary of terms:

AESA: Spain’s Aviation Safety Agency

AMTS: Acoustic Monitoring and Tracking System

BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand

CAM: Autonomous Community of Madrid

CELA: Airside Power Plant

CELT: Landside Power Plant

CGA: Airport Management Center

CHT: Tajo Water Authority

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand

CSAM: Commission to Monitor Expansion Activities of the Madrid Airport System

dB(A): A-weighted decibels

DGAC: Spain’s Civil Aviation Authority

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EMP: Environmental Monitoring Plan

EMS: Environmental Management System

FFS: Firefighting Service

GSE: Ground support equipment

GTTR: Noise Technical Working Group

HW: Hazardous Waste

LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas

Leq airplane, period: Continuous equivalent level generated by an airplane over the given period

MA: Environment

MT: Metric ton

NC: Non-conformity

NHW: Non-Hazardous Waste

NMT: Noise Monitoring Terminal

OFIMA: Environmental Service and Information Office

OPS: operations

110

Glossary

OWS: Oil-Water Separator

PAH: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

P-RNAV: Precision Navigation Routes

RECA: Strategic Environmental Monitoring Network

REDAIR: Automatic Air Quality Monitoring Network

RSO: Operational Security Manager

SS: Suspended Solids

SERCOM: Environmental Monitoring Service for Companies

SIRMA: Noise and Flightpath Monitoring System

TPH: Total Hydrocarbons

T123: Terminals 1, 2 and 3

T4: Terminal 4

T4s: Terminal 4 Satellite

TWR: Control Tower

UPS: Uninterruptible Power Supply

WMP: Waste Management Plan

ZR: Waste Sorting Area

Aeropuerto de Madrid - Barajas

Madrid-Barajas Airport2010 Environmental Management Report

Cubierta_barajasing.indd 1 23/8/11 11:58:07

Documents

Madrid-Barajas Airport - Aena · the Madrid-Barajas Airport organizes various commit-tees and working groups that meet periodically. Of par-ticular importance is the Environmental