Istanbul New Airport ESIA

Environmental Baseline and Impact Assessment

Air Quality

Prepared for:
IGA
Istanbul, Turkey

Prepared by:
ENVIRON
Bath, UK

Date:
May 2015

Project or Issue Number:

UK14-21429
 Contract No: UK14-21429

Issue: 4

Author Erik Sinno, Frédéric Pradelle

(signature):

Project Manager/Director Valéry Votrin/ Denise Wright

(signature):

Date: 06.05.2015

This report has been prepared by ENVIRON with all reasonable skill, care
and diligence, and taking account of the Services and the Terms agreed
between ENVIRON and the Client. This report is confidential to the client,
and ENVIRON accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom
this report, or any part thereof, is made known, unless formally agreed by
ENVIRON beforehand. Any such party relies upon the report at their own
risk.
ENVIRON disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of
any matters outside the agreed scope of the Services.

Version Control Record

Issue Description of Status Date Reviewer Author
Initials Initials

1 First Draft 07 August 2014 VV/NPS ESI/FPR

2 Final Draft 16 December 2014 DW ESI/FPR

3 Final 06 February 2015 VV/DW ESI/FPR

4 Final Amended to Include New Runway 06 May 2015 VV/DW ESI/FPR

Layout

.
IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Contents
7.2 Air Quality 1

7.2.1 Introduction 1
7.2.2 Policy, Regulatory and Administrative Framework 1
7.2.3 Assessment Methodology 3
7.2.4 Air Quality Baseline 12
7.2.5 Potential Impacts 14
7.2.6 Mitigation and Residual Impacts 23
7.2.7 Summary of Impacts 25
7.2.8 Conclusions 29

Annex 7.2.A: Airport Operations Data for Emissions Assessment

Annex 7.2.B: Sources Modelling

Annex 7.2.C: Air Quality Measurement Results

Annex 7.2.D: Concentration Maps

Annex 7.2.E: Concentration at Receptors

List of Tables
Table 7.2.1 Turkey Ambient Air Quality Limit Values (2014 and Future Targets) 2

Table 7.2.2 IFC Air Quality Standards (WHO Air Quality Guidelines) 2

Table 7.2.3 Scenarios and ATMs Considered 3

Table 7.2.4 Summary of Airport Emission Factor Datasets 4

Table 7.2.5 ATMs Per Destination for Each Projected Scenario 5

Table 7.2.6 2022 Scenario Total Emissions (in tonnes) 7

Table 7.2.7 2042 Scenario Total Emissions (in tonnes) 7

Table 7.2.8 Summary of Meteorological Data 8

Table 7.2.9 Modelling Parameters 10

Table 7.2.10 Severity Criteria for Air Quality 12

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.11 Comparison of the NO2 Sampling Data (1 Month Period) with Annual Air Quality
Limits (µg/m3) 13

Table 7.2.12 Comparison of the PM10 Sampling Data (24 H Period) with Relevant Air Quality
Limits (µg/m3) 13

Table 7.2.13 Comparison of the SO2 Sampling Data (1 Month Period) with Annual and Daily
Air Quality Limits (µg/m3) 14

Table 7.2.14 List of Receptor Points 15

Table 7.2.15 Cut and Fill Levels Required to Establish the Platform Levels 15

Table 7.2.16 Summary of Modelling Receptor Concentrations for Scenario 2022 (Phase 1)17

Table 7.2.17 Summary of Modelling Receptor Concentrations for Scenario 2042 (Phase 4)19

Table 7.2.18 Air Quality Impacts for the 2022 Scenario (Phase 1) 21

Table 7.2.19 Air Quality Impacts for Scenario 2042 (Phase 4) 22

Table 7.2.20 Summary of Impacts 25

List of Figures
Figure 7.2.1 Location of the Kumkoy Station 8

Figure 7.2.2 Wind Rose for the Kumkoy Station (2011-2013) 9

Figure 7.2.3 Monthly Temperature for the Kumkoy Station (°C) (2011-2013) 9

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

7.2 Air Quality

7.2.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the potential impacts of the INA Project on air quality. The chapter
includes:
• A review of the Turkish and international air quality legislation and standards;
• A detailed emission inventory of the main INA operations;
• Results of a dispersion modelling exercise using the ADMS-Airport software, taking into
account the emission sources, the design of INA, the background pollution, the land use
and the local meteorological data;
• A quantitative assessment of the potential impacts; and
• Details of mitigation measures.

This assessment is mainly based on the following documents:

• The IFC General EHS Guidelines, Environmental Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality
(Ref. 7.2.1);
• The IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Airports (Ref. 7.2.2);
• The ICAO Airport Air Quality Manual (Ref. 7.2.3); and
• The Master Plan (Ref. 7.2.7) and the following appendices:
- Appendix B - Traffic Analysis;
- Appendix D - NATS High Intensity Runway Operations; and
- Appendix E - Airfield Modelling.

• The new runway layouts and drawings for the amended Master Plan (March 2015) (Ref.
7.2.9)

7.2.2 Policy, Regulatory and Administrative Framework

This section provides an overview of Turkish and international ambient air quality standards,
which apply to this assessment.

7.2.2.1 Turkish Legal Requirements

Ambient air quality is regulated in Turkey by the Regulation on Assessment and Management
of Air Quality – RAMAQ (Figure 7.2.2, Ref. 7.2.4). Appendices I and I-A of this regulation
provide limit values for the 2009-2014 period and for the period after 1 January 2014. Both
are based on a tiered system to reduce limit values over time. The data are summarised in
Table 7.2.1 below.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 1 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.1 Turkey Ambient Air Quality Limit Values (2014 and Future Targets)
Pollutant Period Limit Value (µg/m3)
Hourly 300 (200 in 2024)
NO2
Year 60 (40 in 2024)

Hourly 500 (350 in 2019)

SO2 24 hours 250 (125 in 2019)
Year 150 (2014)

24 hours 100 (50 in 2019)

PM10
Year 60 (40 in 2019)

24 hours 10,000
CO
8 hours 16,000 (10,000 in 2017)
Source: Ref. 7.2.4

7.2.2.2 Standards and Guidelines for International Financing

As international financial institutions could form part of the investment group, IFC standards
and requirements will therefore apply.
The IFC General EHS Guidelines – Environmental Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality refer
to the World Health Organization (WHO) Ambient Air Quality Guidelines for recommended
values (Ref. 7.2.5). These international guidelines are summarised in Table 7.2.2 below.
Table 7.2.2 IFC Air Quality Standards (WHO Air Quality Guidelines)

Pollutant Period Limit Value (µg/m3)

Hourly 200
NO2 40
Year

Hourly 500 (10 min)

SO2 24 hours 20

Year -
24 hours 501
PM10
Year 20

24 hours 251
PM2.5 Year 10

8 hours -
1
The PM10 / PM2.5 guideline for daily average may be exceeded up to 3 times per year.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 2 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

7.2.3 Assessment Methodology

7.2.3.1 Scope
This assessment considers the earthworks and construction phases and the following
emission sources for the operational phase of the Project:
• Aircraft movements: these movements include landing, climbing, take-off and taxiing;
• Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units (APUs); and
• Ground Support Equipment (GSE).

According to airfield development described in the Master Plan (Ref. 7.2.4) and runway splits
provided by IGA in March 2015, two scenarios were considered:
• Operations following the completion of Phase 1, which will provide a single terminal
facility (Terminal 1) with a processing capacity of 90 mppa, three independent north-
south runways, and supporting development;
• Operations following the completion of Phase 4, which will provide two terminals and a
satellite concourse with a combined processing capacity of 180mppa, five north-south
runways, one east-west runway, extended cargo facilities and supporting development.

The corresponding Air Transport Movements are shown in Table 7.2.3.

Table 7.2.3 Scenarios and ATMs Considered
Air Transport
Passengers (million
Scenario Reference Year Movements
per year)
(ATM / year)

Phase 1 2022 90 704,784

Phase 4 2042 180 1,188,529

Source: IGA, 2015 (Note: The reference years are given on the basis of the ATM data provided).
Due to lack of consolidated data at this stage, contribution of road traffic (within and outside
the airport boundary) is therefore not considered in this assessment.
On-site combustion plants and the incineration of waste are also excluded from this
assessment. The related potential impacts should be controlled by operating under
internationally recognised standards for pollution prevention and control and within the
applicable performance levels described in the IFC General EHS Guidelines.
The potential impact of earthworks and construction phases on air quality is discussed in this
assessment.
According to the ICAO Airport Air Quality Manual, the following pollutants are considered:
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2);
• Particulate matter (PM), fraction size PM10 and PM2.5 corresponding to particles with
diameter less than 10 µm and 2.5 µm respectively;
• Sulphur dioxide (SO2);
• Carbon monoxide or (CO); and
• Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 3 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

VOCs are considered in the emission inventory, but are not used for the impact assessment
as there are no international standards regulating VOCs as a whole.

7.2.3.2 Method for Emission Calculation

Emission Factors
To calculate air emissions from the INA operations, air emission factors were used. The
general methodology was as follows:
Emission = Emission Factor × Activity
Where the activity is the number of movements for the aircraft and the duration of annual
operation for APUs or GSE.
As part of this assessment, the emission factors and references used were as summarised in
Table 7.2.4. All air emission calculations were conducted using EMIT software developed by
the CERC in the United Kingdom (Ref. 7.2.6).
Table 7.2.4 Summary of Airport Emission Factor Datasets
Air emission Air emission Description Reference Pollutants
sources factors dataset

Aircraft ICAO 17 Aircraft engine CAA 2010 CO, NO2, NOx,

movements emissions FOCA 2007 PM10, PM2.5, SO2,
VOC
FOI 2007
AIR5715 2009

APUs APU 2004 Aircraft auxiliary FAA 2004 CO, NO2, NOx,
power units VOC

GSE AIRPORT GSE Airport ground UNIQUE 2006 CO, NO2, NOx,
2007 support PM10, PM2.5, VOC
equipment

Notes :
• ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organisation.
• CAA = UK Civil Aviation Authority.
• FOCA = Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation.
• FOI = Swedish Defence Research Agency.
• FAA = US Federal Aviation Administration.
• UNIQUE = Flughafen Zürich AG.
• AIR5715 is a procedure for the calculation of aircraft emissions.

Aircraft Movements
Aircraft emit pollutants to the atmosphere through the combustion of kerosene in aircraft
engines, particularly during take-off when the thrust is at a maximum.
As stated by ICAO, local air quality concerns concentrate on effects created during the landing
and take-off (LTO) cycle as these emissions are released below 3,000 ft. (915 m). The
standard assumptions for LTO cycle are presented in Annex 7.2.A.
As part of the Project, the upcoming Air Transport Movements (ATMs) per destination and for
each projected scenario are presented in Annex 7.2.A and are summarised in Table 7.2.5
below.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.5 ATMs Per Destination for Each Projected Scenario

ATMs 2022 ATMs 2042

Africa 48,841 89,666

Asia 93,206 218,042

Domestic 200,708 278,835

Europe 263,760 433,306

Middle East 83,003 145,492

North America 13,856 20,740

South America 1,410 2,448

Total 704,784 1,188,529

Source: Ref. 7.2.7

Aircraft Types
The emission factors used for the assessment are available per type of aircraft used by airline
companies (e.g., Boeing, Airbus, Embraer). For the Project, a list of aircraft is proposed in
Appendix A of the Master Plan. The derived proportion for each projected scenario is detailed
in Annex 7.2 A.
Runway Proportions and Direction of Operations
The INA will operate the first three runways (Runways 18R/36L, 18C/36C and 18L/36R) during
Phase 1 (2022 Scenario). Six runways will ultimately be operated (Phase 4) and have been
considered in the 2042 scenario, including the east-west runway to be used for domestic
departures only (Runway 09/27). The aircraft proportions for each runway were provided by
IGA for both scenarios (2022 and 2042). These data are reported in Annex 7.2.A. According
to the IGA data, a modal split of northerly and southerly operations was applied as 80%
northerly operations and 20% southerly operations.
Auxiliary Power Units
An APU is a device that provides energy for functions other than propulsion. The primary
purpose of an aircraft APU is to provide power to start the main engines. Aircraft APUs also
produce 115 V alternating current (AC) at 400 Hz to run the electrical systems of the aircraft
as well as the air conditioning unit.
For the purpose of this assessment, it was assumed that the APUs were operated in a mode
that considered environmental protection with their use limited to five minutes after arrival and
five minutes before scheduled time of departure. At the parking stands, it was assumed that
the aircraft will be connected to a 400 Hz feed. The total annual hours of use for each type of
APU and for each scenario was derived from the ATMs.
The APUs selected for the present assessment are the standard ones for each type of aircraft
as proposed by the FAA Air Quality Handbook. The APUs selected for the assessment are
listed in Annex 7.2.A, with their total annual operating times.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 5 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Ground Support Equipment

Ground Support Equipment (GSE) is the equipment used to service the aircraft between flights
and usually located on the ramps. This equipment is used for ground power operations, aircraft
mobility and loading operations.
GSE generally includes the following types of equipment:
• Aircraft refuelers, which can be either a self-contained fuel truck or a hydrant truck or a
cart;
• Tugs and tractors, including pushback tugs and tractors, which are used to push back
aircraft from the gates or used to move other equipment that is not self-propelling;
• Ground power units;
• Buses/coaches;
• Container loader;
• Transporters.
• Air Start Units, which are vehicles with a built-in gas turbine engine that provide high-
pressure air to start the engine. This unit is typically used when an aircraft’s APU is not
operational;
• Potable water trucks;
• Lavatory service vehicles;
• Catering vehicle;
• Belt loaders, which are vehicles with conveyor belts for unloading and loading of
baggage and cargo on aircraft;
• Passengers boarding steps/ramps; and
• De-icing/anti-icing vehicles.

The GSE numbers for INA were provided by IGA based on the available GSE at the Ataturk
International Airport. It was assumed that increases in the number of GSE follows the
increases in ATMs. The total number for each scenario is presented in Annex 7.2.A.
Finally, the air inventory requires an estimate of the total annual operating hours for each type
of GSE. In the absence of specific values for INA, the average annual operating hours
reported by the California Air Resources Board of 663 hr/year was used (Ref. 7.2.8).

7.2.3.3 Air Inventory Results

Tables 7.2.6 and 7.2.7 present the total emissions per pollutant and per source group for both
scenarios.
Aircraft movements are the main contributor to the inventory. Aircraft taxiing is a major
contributor to CO and VOC emissions. This is mainly due to low power settings where
combustion aircraft engines operate at lower efficiency compared to at cruise power settings.
GSE is, however, also significant contributors to CO and NOx emissions. Given the
assumptions taken for APUs annual operating time, aircraft APUs are minor emissions
sources.
In terms of comparison, the INA air emissions inventory is consistent with other air emissions
inventories prepared for large international airports such as London Heathrow Airport in the
UK and Boston Logan International Airport in the US.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 6 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.6 2022 Scenario Total Emissions (in tonnes)

Group CO NO2 NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Aircraft approach 204 76 507 5 5 57 20

Aircraft take-off 26 42 923 3 3 35 4

Aircraft climb 75 99 1872 8 8 91 10

Aircraft taxiing 2,924 185 493 8 8 118 235

Aircraft APU 68 9 87 - - - 57

GSE 378 - 605 30 30 - 96

TOTAL 3,675 411 4487 54 54 301 422

Table 7.2.7 2042 Scenario Total Emissions (in tonnes)
Group CO NO2 NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Aircraft approach 253 176 1172 13 13 113 19

Aircraft take-off 35 102 2273 8 8 71 6

Aircraft climb 87 237 4467 23 23 182 14

Aircraft taxiing 9,723 724 1931 38 38 422 1222

Aircraft APU 98 21 209 - - - 7

GSE 631 0 1,010 51 51 - 161

TOTAL 10,827 1260 10,153 133 133 788 1429

7.2.3.4 Modelling Methodology

Meteorological Data
Modelling was carried out using hourly sequential meteorological data obtained for the
Kumkoy Station for a three years period between 2011 and 2013. The Kumkoy Station is
operated by the Turkish Meteorological Office and is integrated in the METAR/SYNOP
network of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Located approximately 25 km east
of the Project Area (Figure 7.2.1). This station can be considered as representative of the
weather condition at the Project Area and its data as the most appropriate for this study.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 7 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Figure 7.2.1 Location of the Kumkoy Station

Source: Ref. 7.2.9

A summary of the data used for the modelling is given below in Table 7.2.8. Temperature and
cloud cover are used by a pre-processor of the model to calculate the thermal stability of the
atmosphere.
Table 7.2.8 Summary of Meteorological Data
Parameter Kumkoy Station, 2011-2013

Data availability >99.9 %

Height (wind
10 m
measurement)

Surface roughness
0.2 m
at met site

Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum

Wind speed (m/s) 2.3 0 11.3

Temperature (°C) 14.5 -6.1 33.5

Cloud cover (Oktas) 4 0 8

The wind rose for the three year period is presented in Figure 7.2.2, which shows that the
prevailing winds come from the north-west and south-east sectors. Northerly and north-
easterly directions are also significant. Westerly, and especially south-westerly wind
directions, are much less frequent. The plot also shows that the wind speeds are relatively low

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 8 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

(2.3 m/s on average over the three years), with a significant degree of calm conditions (wind
speeds < 1.5 m/s).
Monthly temperatures are presented in Figure 7.2.3.
Figure 7.2.2 Wind Rose for the Kumkoy Station (2011-2013)

350° 0° 10°
340° 800 20°
330° 30°
320° 40°
600
310° 50°

300° 60°
400
290° 70°
200
280° 80°

270° 90°

260° 100°

250° 110°

240° 120°

230° 130°

220° 140°
210° 150°
200° 160°
190° 180° 170°
0 3 6 10 16 (knots)
Wind speed
0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)

Figure 7.2.3 Monthly Temperature for the Kumkoy Station (°C) (2011-2013)

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 9 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

ADMS-Airport Summary
ADMS-Airport is an air quality model developed by Cambridge Environmental Research
Consultants (Ref. 7.2.10) and designed to calculate pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of
an airport. The model represents an extension of the well-known ADMS-Urban model, also
developed by CERC, which models the impact of the complex mix of sources typical of an
urban area, including road, industrial, commercial and domestic sources and other diffuse or
small sources.
The development of ADMS-Airport was catalysed by the UK Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2005, as DEFRA required modelling of the impacts of
London Heathrow Airport on air quality due to the proposed expansion.
ADMS-Airport is recognised by ICAO (Ref. 7.2.3) and several other organisations and
governmental bodies around the world. It has been widely used to model air quality at London
Heathrow Airport in the framework of the Project for Sustainable Development of Heathrow
(PSDH). It is currently used by the Heathrow, Gatwick, Schiphol and Beijing airports operators,
as well as research bodies, including the French aerospace research centre (ONERA).
The approach used in ADMS is to calculate pollutant concentrations for each hour using as
input hourly varying meteorological data, emissions data and background pollutant data. The
meteorological input data are derived from standard meteorological measurements from one
station. The model is able to account for the effects of variations in surface elevation and
surface roughness on the mean wind and turbulence.
ADMS allows a specific treatment of aircraft sources using “accelerating jets” or volume
sources. Full LTO cycles, as well as APU and GSE emissions, can be considered in the model.
Other aspects of ADMS-Airport of particular relevance to this assessment include treatment
of chemistry (NOx-NO2 conversion) and “intelligent” gridding. This last feature allows the
coverage of a large domain with a standard resolution (250 m) with a focus on emission
sources using a much higher resolution gridding (< 50 m).
Finally, ADMS-Airport has been widely validated through comparisons with monitored air
quality data (Ref. 7.2.11) and other modelling approaches including semi-empirical methods,
the Lagrangian model LASPORT and the FAA model EDMS (Ref. 7.2.12).
Model Set-up and Assumptions
The main parameters used in modelling the four scenarios are reported in Table 7.2.9 below.
Table 7.2.9 Modelling Parameters
Meteorology Kumkoy Station, 2011-2013

Surface Roughness on the Domain (m) 0.5

Minimum Monin-Obukhov Length (m) 20

Pollutant NO2, SO2, PM2.5, PM101, CO

Chemistry NOx-NO2 correlation (Derwent-Middletown 1996)

Deposition Gravitational settling for PM10

1
Database used provide the same emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 10 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Emission Sources Aircraft engines for the different phases

(Approach/landing, take-off, initial and final
climb), taxiing, APU, GSE

Background Concentrations measured for the baseline study

at the sensitive points have been used as
background and added to the model results
(receptors only)

Temporal profile applied to emission sources An hourly temporal profile was applied for all
departures and arrivals, according to a busy day
schedule given in the Airfield chapter of the
Master Plan

Grid calculation 25 km x 18 km centered on the Airport (80 x 80

grid points in X and Y). Refining gridding close to
the emission sources

Source Modelling
For the purposes of dispersion modelling, the aircraft sources for take-off and landing were
modelled as volume sources:
• Two volume sources for landing (approach and landing);
• Two volume sources for climbing (initial climb and climb out); and
• One volume source for take-off.

The thickness of all the volume sources was defined according to the Heathrow study by
CERC (Ref. 7.2.11) and comprehensive sensitivity tests about sources modelling were
performed in this framework. According to this study, emissions above 900 m were considered
as insignificant and neglected.
For departure (climb phases), the length of the sources was estimated based on an initial
average climb rate and speed for 737 and 777 aircrafts. It was assumed that most aircraft
would reach 900 m at 11.5 km from the end of the runway. For the approach phase, it was
assumed that most aircraft would be at over 900 m at a maximum distance from the runways
of approximately 30 km. Similar distances would apply for northerly and southerly operations.
Taxiing is the movement of an aircraft on the ground under its own power in contrast to towing
or push-back where the aircraft is moved by a tug. An airplane uses taxiways to taxi from one
place on an airport to another; for example, when moving from a terminal to the runway. The
routes of the airplanes were described based on the Master Plan (Ref. 7.2.9), and the annual
emissions homogeneously distributed over volume sources covering the routes.
The APUs were described as volume sources created around the terminals at the pier stands
as well at the remote stands. The number of APUs per source was estimated based on a ratio
of the total number of APUs to the surface of the source. Given that the APUs are located at
the tail end of the aircrafts, the related emissions were considered as diluted in volume sources
of 12 m thick (set on the ground), whereas a thickness of 3.5 m was considered for runways
and taxiing emissions.
The number of GSE per source was estimated using a ratio of the total number of GSE to the
ground surface of the source.
Spatial characteristics of volume sources are presented in Annex 7.2.C.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 11 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

7.2.3.5 Significance Criteria

According to the IFC General EHS Guidelines – Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality,
projects with significant sources of air emissions and a potential for significant impacts to
ambient air quality should prevent or minimise impacts by ensuring that:
• Emissions do not result in pollutant concentrations that reach or exceed relevant ambient
quality guidelines and standards by applying national legislated standards, or in their
absence, the current WHO Air Quality Guidelines, or other internationally recognised
sources; and
• Emissions do not contribute a significant portion to the attainment of relevant ambient air
quality guidelines or standards. As a general rule, this Guideline suggests 25% of the
applicable air quality standards to allow additional, future sustainable development in the
same airshed.

These two criteria were considered in assessing the potential air quality impacts of the INA
Project. The significance criteria that are used related to the severity of the impacts on air
quality are presented in the Table 7.2.10.
Table 7.2.10 Severity Criteria for Air Quality
Severity Significance Description

No significant change in baseline conditions.

Negligible The Project contribution doe s not exceed 5% of the long-term* and
25% of the short-term* air quality standard levels.
Concentrations at receptors remain within ambient air quality standards
Low The Project contribution does not exceed 25% of the long-term and
50% of the short-term relevant air quality standard levels.

Concentrations at receptors remain within ambient air quality

standards.
Moderate
The incremental impact (Project contribution) exceeds 25% of the long-
term or 50% of the short-term relevant air quality standard levels.

Ambient air quality standards (short-term or long-term) are not attained

High
at receptors.

* Short-term corresponds to hourly or daily standards and long-term corresponds to annual standards.

7.2.4 Air Quality Baseline

An air quality baseline assessment was performed through two measurement campaigns
conducted in March – April 2014 (Set 1) and May – June 2014 (Set 2). Nine sampling points
corresponding to residential areas located directly around the Project were considered for both
periods. The following pollutants were sampled and analysed for each campaign:
• PM10 (collected during 24 hours on a filter);
• Trace metals in PM10 (analysis of the PM10 filters);
• Settled dust (1-month period);
• Trace metals in settled dust; and

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 12 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

• Gas using a passive sampling method (1-month period): NO2, NOx, SO2, Benzene, 1-3
Butadiene.

The detailed results of the measurements and the location of the sampling points are
presented in Annex 7.2.C.
The main results concerning NO2, PM10, and SO2 are summarised in Tables 7.2.11 to 7.2.13
including a comparison with the relevant Turkish and international standards.
Table 7.2.11 Comparison of the NO2 Sampling Data (1 Month Period) with Annual Air
Quality Limits (µg/m3)
Sampling points Set 1 Set 2* Turkey IFC

Akpinar (AQ-PM1) 24.47 -

Agacli (AQ-PM2) 31.95 -

Odayeri (AQ-PM3) 18.21 -

Ihsaniye (AQ-PM4) 14.73 -

60 (annual limit 40 (annual limit
Tayakadin (AQ-PM5) 19.77 -
value for 2014) value)
Yenikoy(AQ-PM6) 10.13 -

Durusu Zafer (AQ-PM7) 12.07 -

Arnavutkoy(AQ-PM8) 14.53 -

Yukari Agacli (AQ-PM9) - -

* The NO2 values measured during the second campaign were all very low (less than 1 µg/m3). They were not
used in this assessment as potentially invalid. They are not reported here.

Table 7.2.12 Comparison of the PM10 Sampling Data (24 H Period) with Relevant Air
Quality Limits (µg/m3)
Sampling points Set 1 Set 2 Turkey IFC
Akpinar (AQ-PM1) 32.9 41.7
Agacli (AQ-PM2) 41.6 10.4

Odayeri (AQ-PM3) 52.7 251*

Ihsaniye (AQ-PM4) 8.45 50.90
100 (50 in
Tayakadin (AQ-PM5) 21.94 19.46 50
2022)
Yenikoy(AQ-PM6) 8.32 24.99

Durusu Zafer (AQ-PM7) 37.89 13.92

Arnavutkoy(AQ-PM8) 13.46 37.34

Yukari Agacli (AQ-PM9) - 25.0
* This sampling point is located at a sensitive receptor (garden of a house) that is close to the main road having
a high truck traffic load (most probably due to construction activities in this region such as Northern Marmara
Motorway).

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 13 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.13 Comparison of the SO2 Sampling Data (1 Month Period) with Annual and
Daily Air Quality Limits (µg/m3)
Sampling points Set 1 Set 2 Turkey IFC
Akpinar (AQ-PM1) 13.44 1.53

Agacli (AQ-PM2) 11.45 1.97

Odayeri (AQ-PM3) 10.56 1.09

Ihsaniye (AQ-PM4) 11.49 -*
150 (annual 20 (WHO Guideline
Tayakadin (AQ-PM5) 18.50 2.64 limit value for value for 24 h
2014) period)
Yenikoy(AQ-PM6) 5.72 1.47
Durusu Zafer (AQ-PM7) 11.95 0.94

Arnavutkoy(AQ-PM8) 5.46 1.14

Yukari Agacli (AQ-PM9) - <1.40

* Results not available

With regard to the Turkish and international standards, the following can be concluded from
the passive and active baseline sampling:
• The existing situation reveals moderate levels for SO2 and NO2. The concentrations
reported here complied with Turkish and international standards;
• PM10 daily values measured in Odayeri and Ihsaniye exceeded the IFC standard set to
50 µg/m3. The Odayeri sampling points was influenced by a high and local truck traffic
load, most probably due to construction activities; and
• The lowest concentration levels were measured in Yenikoy and Arnavutkoy.

Overall, the pollution levels are typical of small towns, with moderate to high levels in PM10.
Several local sources can contribute to PM10 concentrations such as mining/quarrying
activities, local road traffic or wind erosion.

7.2.5 Potential Impacts

7.2.5.1 Receptors
The Project Area is surrounded by several residential zones, located between 1 and 5 km from
the closest runway (Yukari Agacli is less than 400 m from Runway 09/27). In these residential
areas (Durusu, Tayakadin and Arnavutkoy) there are dwellings as well as schools, mosques
and health centres, which can be considered as high in terms of sensitivity to air quality.
The residential areas listed in Table 7.12.14 were considered in the air quality assessment. A
receptor point corresponding to each area was integrated in the modelling (see location in
Annex 7.2.E). The rest of the domain was also covered by the calculation grid (spatial
resolution of about 250 m).

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 14 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.14 List of Receptor Points

Approximate Separation Distance (km)
Receptors
Runway/Taxiways Building Infrastructure

Agacli 2.5 8.0

Akpinar 0.9 3.2

Arnavutkoy 5.2 4.7

Ihsaniye 1.3 3.2

Imrahor 3.8 3.0

Isiklar 2.3 4.4

Karaburun 5.0 7.5

Odayeri 2.0 6.9

Tayakadin 1.2 3.5

Yenikoy 2.0 4.4

Yukari Agacli 0.4 4.9

7.2.5.2 Earthworks and Construction

According to IFC General EHS Guidelines, earthworks and construction activities may
generate emissions of fugitive dust caused by a combination of:
• On-site excavation and handling/transport of earth materials;
• Contact of construction machinery (including dumpers, loaders, etc.) with bare soil and
unpaved roads; and/or
• Exposure of bare soil and soil piles to wind.

Secondary sources of emissions may include:

• Exhaust from diesel engines of earth moving equipment (emissions of PM, NOx, SO2,
Benzene); or
• Burning of solid waste on-site (emissions of PM, NOx, dioxins).

The Project Area has been used previously by open cast mining and quarrying companies
and the rest was forestry land. This Project Area will be completely redeveloped including
earthworks to provide a platform for the airport up to 92 m above sea level. This will require
water bodies to be filled and land to be levelled. It is estimated that the levels of cut and fill
summarised in Table 7.2.15 will be required throughout the Project to establish the required
platform levels:
Table 7.2.15 Cut and Fill Levels Required to Establish the Platform Levels
Cut Fill Net Total
6 3 6 3 6 3
(10 m ) (10 m ) (10 m ) (106 m3)

Phase 1 650 320 330 970

Phase 2 28 34 -6 62

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 15 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Cut Fill Net Total

(106 m3) (106 m3) (106 m3) (106 m3)

Phase 3 53 18 35 71

Phase 4 (final) 15 24 -9 39

Total 746 396 350 1,142

Source: IGA, 2015

It is expected that the earthworks for the Phase 1 development will last for an estimated 20-
month period.
As excavation and land clearing works within the Project Area will result in the generation of
the dust as well as exhaust emissions, this will potentially have an adverse impact on the local
air quality, especially for Phase 1 according to Table 7.2.15. This impact will mainly concern
the Project Area, and can be considered as low for the receptor points located beyond the
Project boundaries.

7.2.5.3 Airport Operations

The modelling study was performed for NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and CO for two operational
phases (Phase 1 – 2022 and Phase 4 – 2042). Concentration values were calculated at
ground level, at short and long term in order to allow a comparison with relevant regulatory
limit values.
Average concentration maps for NO2, PM10 and SO2 are presented in Annex 7.2.D for both
scenarios. These maps show that:
• According to the prevailing winds, the dispersion of the pollutants is mainly to the north-
west and the south-east. The most impacted receptors are the neighbourhoods of
Ihsaniye, Akpinar, Tayakadin, Imrahor and Yukari Agacli, due to their proximity to the
Project Area;
• The maximum concentrations are found directly at the source locations, i.e. on the
runways and taxiways and around the terminals at the piers and remote stands. These
high concentrations decrease significantly with distance from the source;
• According to the emission inventory, the aircraft movements are the main sources of
NO2 at ground level. The results show that NO2 concentrations can exceed 150 µg/m3
on average on Runway 17R/35L for the 2042 Scenario (maximal thrust for the engines).
The NO2 concentrations are also significant on the taxiways and around the terminals
due to GSE emissions. The impact of the climb and approach phases on the ground
concentrations appears, however, to be limited, with the pollutant dispersion increasing
significantly with altitude of the aircrafts; and
• The highest ground level concentrations of CO, SO2 and PM are mainly found on the
taxiways and on the stands, as these are mainly emitted by aircraft engines at low thrust
and by GSE.

The results for receptor points are presented in Annex 7.2.E. These results are summarised
in Tables 7.2.16 and 7.2.17, for the three most impacted residential areas and for both
scenarios. Where Turkish and IFC limit values were different, the most stringent value was
selected.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 16 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.16 Summary of Modelling Receptor Concentrations for Scenario 2022 (Phase 1)

Background Projects Projects contribution

Max calculated value2 Cumulative
Pollutants Period contribution to the to the standard Standard value
concentration1 value3
(Set 1/Set 2) cumulative value4 value5

78.6 (Tayakadin) 39%

1h 77.0 (Imrahor) - - - 39% 200
75.1 (Durusu) 38%
NO2
11.2 (Tayakadin) 19.7 / - 30.9 / - 36% / - 28%
Year 6.1 (Durusu) 12.1 / - 18.2 / - 34% / - 15% 40
4.1 (Imrahor) - - - 10%

0.29 (Tayakadin) 21.9 / 19.5 22.2 / 19.8 1% / 1% < 1%

24 h 0.27 (Ihsaniye) 8.4 / 50.9 8.7 / 51.2 3% / < 1% < 1% 40
0.25 (Arnavutkoy) 13.5 / 37.3 13.8 / 37.6 2% / <1% < 1%
PM10
0.06 (Tayakadin) < 1%
Year 0.03 (Imrahor) - - - < 1% 20
0.02 (Ihsaniye) < 1%

0.81 (Tayakadin) 3%
24 h 0.77 (Ihsaniye) - - - 3% 25
0.71 (Imrahor) 3%
PM2.5
0.16 (Tayakadin) 2%
Year 0.08 (Imrahor) - - - < 1% 10
0.06 (Ihsaniye) < 1%

23.5 (Tayakadin) 7%
SO2 1h - - - 350
19.9 (Akpinar) 6%

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 17 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Background Projects Projects contribution

Max calculated value2 Cumulative
Pollutants Period contribution to the to the standard Standard value
concentration1 value3
(Set 1/Set 2) cumulative value4 value5

19.7 (Imrahor) 6%

11.2 (Tayakadin) 56%

24 h 6.4 (Ihsaniye) - - - 32% 20
6.3 (Durusu) 32%

364 (Tayakadin) 4%
CO 8h 280 (Ihsaniye) - - - 3% 10,000
278 (278) 3%
1
Modelling results for the airport operations. Three highest ground level concentrations at receptor points for each pollutant.
2
Derived from the baseline study.
3
Background + calculated contribution of airport operations. Concentrations exceeding guidelines or standards are shown in bold,
4
Ratio between the airport concentration and the cumulative value.
5
Portion to the attainment of relevant guidelines or standards.
6
Where Turkish and IFC limit values were different, the most stringent value was selected.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 18 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.17 Summary of Modelling Receptor Concentrations for Scenario 2042 (Phase 4)

Background Project’s
Max calculated value2 Cumulative Project’s contribution
Pollutants Period contribution to the Standard value
concentration1 value3 to the standard value5
(Set 1/Set 2) cumulative value4

97.8 (Tayakadin) 49%

1h 95.9 (Akpinar) - - - 48% 200
94.6 (Yukari) 47%
NO2
13.5 (Tayakadin) 19.7 / - 33.2 / - 41% /- 34%
Year 11.2 (Ihsaniye) 14.7 / - 25.9 / - 643% /- 28% 40
9.4 (Imrahor) - - - 24%

0.70 (Akpinar) 32.9 / 41.7 33.6 / 42.4 2% / 2% 2%

24 h 0.59 (Ihsaniye) 8.4 / 50.9 9.0 / 51.5 6% / 1% 1% 40
0.53 (Tayakadin) 21.9 / 19.4 22.4 / 19.9 2% / 3% 1%
PM10
0.10 (Tayakadin) < 1%
Year 0.08 (Ihsaniye) - - - < 1% 20
0.06 (Imrahor) < 1%

1.58 (Ihsaniye) 6%
24 h 01.49 (Akpinar) - - - 6% 25
PM2.5
1.38 (Tayakadin) 6%

Year 0.29 (Tayakadin) - - - 3% 10

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 19 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Background Project’s
Max calculated value2 Cumulative Project’s contribution
Pollutants Period contribution to the Standard value
concentration1 value3 to the standard value5
(Set 1/Set 2) cumulative value4

0.19 (Ihsaniye) 2%
0.17 (Imrahor) 2%

60.6(Tayakadin) 17%
1h 57.2 (Yukari) - - - 16% 350
55.1 (Akpinar) 16%
SO2
23.7 (Tayakadin) 119%
24 h 19.4 (Odayeri) - - - 97% 20
19.3 (Ishaniye) 97%

934 (Akpinar) 9%
CO 8h 861 (Tayakadin) - - - 9% 10,000
753 (Ihsaniye) 8%
1
Modelling results for the airport operations. Three highest ground level concentrations at receptor points for each pollutant.
2
Derived from the baseline study.
3
Background + calculated contribution of airport operations.
4
Ratio between the airport concentration and the cumulative value.
5
Portion to the attainment of relevant Air Quality Guidelines or Standards.
6
Where Turkish and IFC limit values were different, the lower value was automatically selected.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 20 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

According to the modelling results, the following conclusions can be drawn with regard to the
impacts of the airport operations and compliance with relevant guidelines and standards:
• Whereas background concentrations can be significant for several receptors (Ihsaniye
and Akpinar), the contribution of airport operations to primary PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations will remain very low and can be considered as negligible.
This contribution should not exceed 3% of the limit/guideline values in annual average,
and 6% for daily concentrations.
• Modelling results for NO2 show that annual concentrations could exceed 25% of the limit
value at two receptors (Tayakadin and Ihsaniye), for the 2042 Scenario only. The short
term results show that the Project can contribute a significant portion of the hourly limit
value. The maximum hourly concentration is predicted to reach 97.8 µg/m3 in Tayakadin
for the 2042 Scenario, i.e. 49% of the limit value given by the international standards.
For the 2022 Scenario, the highest hourly value is expected to reach 39% of the air
quality standard level in Tayakadin. However, these exceedances concern maximum
values which occur only a few hours during the year;
• With regard to SO2, which will mainly be emitted during aircraft taxiing, the maximum
hourly concentration is expected to be in Tayakadin for the 2042 Scenario. It is predicted
to reach 57.2 µg/m3, which is well below the limit value (350 µg/m3). However, the
maximum daily value calculated for the 2042 Scenario in Tayakadin (23.7 µg/m3)
exceeds the WHO guideline value set at 20 µg/m3. According to the dispersion model,
these exceedances should not occur more than twice a year. The maximum value
calculated for the 2022 Scenario is 11.2 µg/m3 (which represents a contribution of 56%
to the guideline value) for Tayakadin; and
• The air quality standard for CO will also be met, as the calculated values are less than
10% of the Turkish short-term limit value in all cases.

Tables 7.2.18 and 7.2.19 summarise the impacts of the operational phase of the INA for both
scenarios.
Table 7.2.18 Air Quality Impacts for the 2022 Scenario (Phase 1)
Duration /
Pollutant Severity Criteria Extent Reversibility
frequency

The project contribution

is lower than 1% of the
PM10 / PM2.5 Negligible - - Reversible
long-term air quality
standard

Less than 10
The Project contribution
All the hours per
NO2 Low exceeds 25% of the 1-h Reversible
receptors year for each
air quality standard
receptors

Less than 7
Low The Project contribution
50% of the days per year
SO2 exceeds 25% of the daily Reversible
receptors for each
air quality standard level
receptors

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 21 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Duration /
Pollutant Severity Criteria Extent Reversibility
frequency
The Project
contribution is lower
CO Negligible than 5% of the - - Reversible
short-term Air
quality standard

Table 7.2.19 Air Quality Impacts for Scenario 2042 (Phase 4)

Duration /
Pollutant Severity Criteria Extent Reversibility
frequency

The project
contribution does
not exceed 3% and
PM10 / PM2.5 Negligible 6% of the long-term - - Reversible
and short-term air
quality standard
respectively

The Project Less than

contribution 10 hours
All the
Low exceeds 25% of the per year for Reversible
receptors
1-h air quality each
standard receptors
NO2
The Project
contribution can Neighbourhoo
Moderate exceed 25% of the ds of Ihsaniye Permanent Reversible
annual air quality and Tayakadin
standard

Exceedances of the Neighbourhoo

High ds of Less than 3
SO2 daily guideline
Tayakadin days per Reversible
value proposed by
year
the WHO

The project
contribution is lower
CO Negligible than 10% of the - - Reversible
short-term Air
quality standard

These tables show that the INA operations are not predicted to lead to a significant change in
the baseline conditions for PM (i.e. PM10 and PM2.5) and CO, for both the 2022 and 2042
scenarios. The impact can be considered as negligible.
According to the modelling assessment, a low impact significance is expected for NO2.
Receptors are very rarely (less than 10 hrs per year) concerned by this impact during Phase
1 (2022 Scenario). The remainder of the time, the impact can be considered as negligible. The
neighbourhoods of Ihsaniye and Tayakadin will be more frequently affected by this low impact
for the 2042 Scenario. It should be noted that the road traffic (inside and outside the Project
Area) was not included in the assessment. The impact of the traffic sources can be significant
for NOx emissions, especially when the traffic is dense (motorways, heavy traffic levels and
congestion). However, this impact is expected to be very local, and generally will not extend

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 22 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

more than 100 to 200 m from the road axis. Therefore, this impact will concern only the
residential areas located very close to motorways and roads with high traffic.
With regard to SO2, airport operations are predicted to lead to a low impact significance for
the 2022 Scenario, but to a high impact for the 2042 Scenario, according to the daily guideline
value proposed by the WHO. However, it is important to note that this guideline value is very
low, as it is more than six times lower than the Turkish (and the European) limit value.
According to the Turkish air quality standards for daily SO2 concentrations, the impact
significance would be considered as negligible. It should also be noted that SO2 is not a
notable pollutant of concern in the environment of airports (compared to NO2).

7.2.6 Mitigation and Residual Impacts

The following section describes the actions and strategies designed to avoid, minimise or
offset the potential adverse air quality impacts of the Project described above, or to enhance
potential Project benefits.

7.2.6.1 Earthworks and Construction

As described above and according to IFC General EHS Guidelines, construction activities may
generate emission of fugitive dust caused by on-site excavation and materials handling,
contact of construction machinery with bare soil, and exposure of bare soil and soil piles to
wind. A secondary source of emissions may include exhaust from diesel equipment, as well
as from open burning of solid waste on-site.
The following techniques for the reduction and control of air emissions will be implemented
during the construction phase, especially during the earthworks for the Phase 1 development
(20-month period). They are provided by priority, considering the impact at the receptors:
• Vehicle speed limitations, particularly close to sensitive receptors;
• Restriction on vehicular usage in off-road areas;
• Minimising dust from material handling sources, such as conveyors and bins, by using
covers and/or control equipment (water suppression, bag house filters or cyclones);
• Minimising dust from open area sources, including storage piles, by using control
measures such as installing enclosures and covers, and increasing the moisture content;
• Dust suppression techniques, such as applying water or non-toxic chemicals to minimise
dust from vehicle movements; and
• Management of emissions from mobile sources, including adequate maintenance of
vehicle and equipment, and
• Avoiding open burning of solid waste.

All of these mitigation actions, implemented through compliance with the framework ESMP
and Pollution Prevention Plan, will significantly limit the emission levels and the potential
impacts, especially for the residential areas located beyond the Project Area. The residual
impact significance can be considered as Negligible.

7.2.6.2 Airport Operations

As discussed above and according to the modelling assessment, the airport operations for the
2022 Scenario (Phase 1) are not predicted tot lead to significant air quality impacts. The impact
significance is considered to be Negligible for PM10, PM2.5 and CO, and Low for NO2 and SO2.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 23 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

The NO2 and SO2 impacts are predicted to be moderate and high for the 2042 Scenario,
respectively for NO2 and SO2 prior to mitigation. The following actions will be implemented in
order to avoid or limit the highest impacts for the 2042 Scenario:
• Optimise aircraft ground traffic in order to reduce taxiing and therefore reduce NOx and
SO2 air emissions. For example, aircraft should takeoff from the runway which is the
nearest to their parking stand;
• Implement landing and takeoff procedures that minimise air emission impacts by
reducing the duration of the landing phase or increasing the climb angle;
• Ensure that aircraft fleets are the latest models and maintained according to GIIP as
dictated by aircraft manufacturers;
• Select GSE with a consideration of low pollutant air emissions and efficient energy
consumption where possible, and maintained according to the manufacturers’
recommendations;
• Implement ATC ground delay procedures to minimise ATC delays and flight time in
holding patterns;
• Use jet fuel with the lowest possible sulphur content (i.e. use of GTP jet fuel), where
possible, in order to further reduce aircraft SO2 air emissions; and
• Consideration will be given to joining the EU Clean Sky/ACARE initiative that targets an
80% reduction in NOx emissions by 2020 to further reduce aircraft NOx emissions.

Considering that the most significant impacts (classified as high) are due to infrequent
exceedances (three days per year) of the daily standard proposed by the WHO for SO2, the
emission reduction caused by the implementation of the proposed mitigation actions are
expected to result in an avoidance these impacts. The residual impacts can be considered as
no more than Moderate for SO2 (2042 Scenario), considering that the power plant (not
included in this assessment) will be operated according to the Turkish and international
standards.
The mitigation measures are expected to lead to a significant decrease of the NOx emission
and therefore a decrease in the average NO2 concentrations at the receptors. As the
assessment shows only a slight exceedance of the criterion on the long-term concentrations
(for 2042 Scenario only), the mitigation measures are expected to reduce the moderate impact
for NO2 to result in a residual impact significance for NO2 of Low for both scenarios.
It should also be noted that there is a commitment to construct the airport in compliance with
the requirements of the Green Airport Project, which includes a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions. In addition, the terminal buildings are expected to be designed as certified ‘Green
Buildings’ to achieve at least Silver Certification under the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification scheme which will further decrease emission levels
(Chapter 7.10 Resource Efficiency).

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 24 ENVIRON

 IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

7.2.7 Summary of Impacts

A summary of the impacts and mitigation measures in relation to air quality are outlined in Table 7.2.20.
Table 7.2.20 Summary of Impacts
Potential
Receptor/ Impact Significance Design, Enhancement or Mitigation Management Residual
Topic Phase
Beneficiary Categorisation Prior to Measures Plan Significance
Mitigation

Deterioration Residential Construction Type: Likelihood: • Apply speed limitations, especially ESMP Negligible
of ambient air areas located Negative Probable close to sensitive receptors; Pollution (Adverse)
quality (mainly close to the • Restriction on vehicular usage in Prevention
due to dust boundary of the Severity:
off-road areas; Plan
and diesel Project Area Duration: Low
emissions) • Minimise dust from material
Existing Limited (20 handling sources, such as
resulting from construction months for the
mobile and conveyors and bins, by using
worker Phase 1) covers and/or control equipment
stationary accommodation Significance:
equipment on Extent: (water suppression, bag houses or
area Low cyclones);
Site Local (boundary
of the Project • Minimise dust from open area
Area) sources, including storage piles, by
Reversibility: using control measures such as
installing enclosures and covers,
Reversible and increasing the moisture
Sensitivity: content;
Low for the • Dust suppression techniques
residential areas should be implemented, such as
located around applying water or non-toxic
the Project Area chemicals to minimise dust from
vehicle movements;
• Management of emissions from
mobile sources, including adequate
maintenance of vehicle and
equipment; and

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 25 ENVIRON

 IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Potential
Receptor/ Impact Significance Design, Enhancement or Mitigation Management Residual
Topic Phase
Beneficiary Categorisation Prior to Measures Plan Significance
Mitigation
• Avoid open burning of solid waste.

Type: Pollution Low

Likelihood: • Optimise the airplanes ground Prevention (Adverse) for
Negative
Probable traffic in order to reduce taxiing and Plan the 2022
therefore reduce NOx and SO2 air Scenario
Severity:
Duration: emissions. For example, the
Low for the Moderate
airplanes should take-off from
Short term impact 2022 Scenario (Adverse)* for
Daily runway which is the nearest to their
(few days a year) the 2042
deterioration High for the parking stand;
Populations Extent: Scenario
of ambient air 2042 Scenario • Implement landing and takeoff
surrounding the Operational Local
quality due to procedures that minimize air
Project Area (Tayakadin,
SO2 emissions impact by respectively
emissions Ishaniye and reducing the duration of the landing
Odayeri) Significance: phase or increasing the climb
Reversibility: Low for the angle;
Reversible 2022 Scenario • Ensure that aircraft fleets are the
High for the latest and maintained according to
Sensitivity:
2042 Scenario best practices dictated by aircraft
High manufacturers;
Likelihood: • GSE must be the best possible in Low
Type:
terms of pollutant air emissions and (Adverse) for
Negative Probable
Hourly electrical GSE should be preferred both scenarios
deterioration Severity: when possible. The maintenance
Populations procedures proposed by suppliers
of ambient air Duration: Low for both
surrounding the Operational must be respected.
quality due to scenarios
Project Area Short term impact
SO2 • Implement ATC ground delay
(few hours a
emissions procedures to minimize ATC delays
year)
and flight time in holding patterns.
Extent: Significance:

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 26 ENVIRON

 IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Potential
Receptor/ Impact Significance Design, Enhancement or Mitigation Management Residual
Topic Phase
Beneficiary Categorisation Prior to Measures Plan Significance
Mitigation
Local (receptors Low for both • Technically and financially validate
located around scenarios the use of jet fuel with the lowest
the Project Area) possible sulphur content (i.e. use of
Reversibility: GTP Jet Fuel).
Reversible • Join the EU Clean Sky/ ACARE
initiative that targets an 80%
Sensitivity: reduction in NOx emissions by
Moderate 2020.
• Establish four permanent
Type: Likelihood: Low
monitoring stations in Ihsaniye, (Adverse) for
Negative Probable Tayakadin, Odayeri and Akpinar to both scenarios
Severity: ensure continuous measurements
Duration: Low for the of NO2, SO2 and PM. This
2022 Scenario monitoring plan could be completed
Long-term by temporary campaigns (2 x 2-
Long-term (exceedance of Moderate for weeks year) using diffusion tubes at
deterioration Residential the annual air the 2042 sensitive locations.
of ambient air areas quality standard) Scenario
Operational • Establish the following air quality
quality due to surrounding the Extent: monitoring frequency: daily for SO2;
NO2 Project Area
Local (Ihsaniye hourly and annually average for
emissions
and Tayakadin) Significance: NO2; and daily and annually
Reversibility: average for PM10 and PM2.5.
Low for the
Reversible 2022 Scenario
Sensitivity: Moderate for
Moderate the 2042
Scenario

Deterioration Residential Type: Likelihood: Negligible

of ambient air areas Negative Probable (Adverse) for
Operational
quality due to surrounding the both scenarios
Project Area Severity:
PM10 and

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 27 ENVIRON

 IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Potential
Receptor/ Impact Significance Design, Enhancement or Mitigation Management Residual
Topic Phase
Beneficiary Categorisation Prior to Measures Plan Significance
Mitigation
PM2.5 Duration: Negligible for
emissions Short term (daily) both scenarios
and Long-term
(annual) impact
Extent: Significance:
Local Negligible for
Reversibility: both scenarios
Reversible
Sensitivity:
Moderate

Type: Likelihood: Negligible

Negative Probable (Adverse) for
both scenarios
Severity:
Duration: Negligible for
Short term (8 hr both scenarios
Deterioration
Populations period)
of ambient air
surrounding the Operational
quality due to Extent:
Project Area
CO emissions Local Significance:
Reversibility: Negligible for
Reversible both scenarios
Sensitivity:
Moderate

* It is important to note that this residual impact (classified as Moderate) is due to the very restrictive guideline value proposed by the WHO (in daily average). According to the Turkish
air quality standard for the daily SO2 concentrations, the residual significance would be considered as Negligible. SO2 is not considered to be a notable pollutant of concern in the
environment of airports.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 28 ENVIRON

 ESIA
IGA Istanbul New Airport

7.2.8 Conclusions
The generation of dust and exhaust emissions associated with excavation and land clearance
works during the earthworks and construction phases could potentially have an adverse
impact on the local air quality, in particular for Phase 1 (20-month period), for residential areas
located close to the boundary of the Project Area. The implementation of the mitigation
measures and compliance with the Pollution Prevention Plan and ESMP, including mitigation
actions for mobile sources, should significantly reduce the emissions (especially for dust) and
ensure that the residual effects of the construction phase can be classified as Negligible
(Adverse) for the receptors.
For the 2022 Scenario (Phase 1 of the operational phase), the airport operations are not
expected to lead to significant air quality impacts. The impact significance tis considered to be
Negligible (Adverse) for PM10 and CO, and as Low (Adverse) for NO2 and SO2.
For the 2042 Scenario, the impact significance is moderate and high for NO2 and SO2
respectively at the receptors located downwind or close to the project boundary namely: the
neighbourhoods of Ihsaniye, Tayakadin, Odayeri and Akpinar. The implementation of a
Pollution Prevention Plan for the operational phase, focusing primarily on GSE, APU and
aircraft taxiing, will reduce the concentrations and lead to a residual impact significance of
Low (Adverse) and Moderate (Adverse) for NO2 and SO2 respectively. It should be noted
that the residual Moderate (Adverse) impact significance for SO2 is due to a very restrictive
daily guideline proposed by the WHO. The same impact significance would be considered as
Negligible (Adverse) under Turkish air quality standards.

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 29 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

References

Ref. 7.2.1 Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, General EHS Guidelines:
General EHS Guidelines – Environmental Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality,
IFC, 30 April 2007
Ref. 7.2.2 Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for Airports, IFC, 30 April 2007

Ref. 7.2.3 The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Airport Air Quality Manual,
Document 9889, 2011

Ref. 7.2.4 Regulation on Assessment and Management of Air Quality – RAMAQ, Official
Gazette Date/Number: 06.06.2008/26898, Appendices I and I-A

Ref. 7.2.5 World Health Organization (WHO). Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2005:
Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide, 2006

Ref. 7.2.6 EMIT User Guide Version 3.2, Atmospheric Emissions Inventory Toolkit, CERC, July
2013.

Ref. 7.2.7 Ove Arup and Partners, Istanbul New Airport Master Plan, December 2013

Ref. 7.2.8 Draft Airport Ground Support Equipment Project Criteria, Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, July
2014.

Ref. 7.2.9 Arup and Partners International Limited, Istanbul New Airport Master Plan December
2013 as amended in March 2015 (new runway layouts and drawing)

Ref. 7.2.10 ADMS-Airport description available here: www.cerc.co.uk

Ref. 7.2.11 Air Quality Studies for Heathrow : Base case, Segregated Mode, Mixed Mode and
Third Runway Scenarios modelled using ADMS-Airport, prepared for UK Department
for Transport, CERC, 2007

Ref. 7.2.12 PSDH. Air Dispersion Model Evaluation – Scientific Assessment, Inter-comparison
and Validation. Report for DfT (UK Department for Transport), CERC, 2005

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Annex 7.2.A: Airport Operations Data for Emissions Assessment

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.1A Aircraft Used for the Air Emission Inventory and Ratio by Each Scenario

Aircraft 2022 (%) 2042 (%)

318 0.25 0.13

319 5.10 2.74
320 23.38 20.57
321 12.94 6.95
330 3.23 2.07
332 0.75 0.40
333 0.25 0.13
343 1.24 0.73
380 - 0.80
733 0.25 0.13
735 0.25 0.13
737 23.13 40.88
738 15.67 10.69
739 1.87 1.00
763 0.25 -
767 0.37 -
772 0.62 1.34
777 5.97 8.88
787 0.37 0.67
32S 0.25 0.13
73N 0.12 0.07
73W 1.12 0.60
77W 1.74 0.94
AT7 0.12 -
CR9 0.12 -
DH4 0.25 -
E90 0.12 -
E95 0.25 -

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.2A Aircraft Times in Mode (in Seconds)

Aircraft Aircraft Mode (Thrust Setting)

Type Approach Taxi Take-off
Climb out (85%)
(30%) (7%) (100%)

Jet 240 1,560 42 132

Turboprop 270 1,560 30 150

Source: ICAO (Ref. 7.2.3)

Table 7.2.3.A: Estimated Aircraft Splits by Region - Phase 1

Northerly South North South

Region ATMs 2022
Departures Departures Arrivals Arrivals

Africa 48,841 19,536 19,536 4,884 4,884

Asia 93,206 37,283 37,283 9,321 9,321

Domestic 200,708 80,283 80,283 20,071 20,071

Europe 263,760 105,504 105 504 26,376 26,376

Middle East 83,003 33,201 33,201 8,300 8,300

North America 13,856 5,542 5,542 1,386 1,386

South America 1,410 564 564 141 141

Total 704,784 281,914 281,914 70,478 70,478

Table 7.2.4.A Estimated Aircraft Splits by Region - Phase 4

ATMs Northerly South North South East West

Region
2042 Departures Departures Arrivals Arrivals Departures

Africa 89,666 35,867 35,867 8,967 8,967 -

Asia 218,042 87,217 87,217 21,804 21,804 -

Domestic 278,835 39,037 111,534 9,759 27,883 90,621

Europe 433,306 173,323 173,323 43,331 43,331 -

Middle East 145,492 58,197 58,197 14,549 14,549 -

North America 20,740 8,296 8,296 2,074 2,074 -

South America 2,448 979 979 245 245 -

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

ATMs Northerly South North South East West

Region
2042 Departures Departures Arrivals Arrivals Departures

Total 1,188,529 402,916 475,413 100,729 118,853 90,621

Table 7.2.5.A APU Selected for the Air Emission Inventory

APU 2022 (hour/year)

131-9 49,236

GTCP 85 6721

GTCP 331-350 438

GTCP 36-150 48,943

GTCP 36-300 146

GTCP331-200ER 730

GTCP331–500 10,227

GTCP-85-129 584

APU 2042 (hour/year)

GTCP 36-300 59,943

GTCP-85-129 265

GTCP 331-350 6,616

131-9 105,329

GTCP331–500 21,569

PW 980A 1,588

Table 7.2.6.A Number of GSE

GSE 2022 2042

400 Hz ground power unit 321 535

Air climate unit 70 116

Aircraft deicing truck 42 70

Aircraft tug 70 116

Cargo container 84 140

Fork lift 223 372

Lavatory truck 112 186

Narrowbody tug 84 140

Passengers stairs 28 47

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

GSE 2022 2042

Water truck 432 721

Staff, VIP and follow-me 335 558

cars

Buses 195 326

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Annex 7.2.B: Sources Modelling

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.1.B Spatial Characteristics of the Landing, Take-Off and Climbing Sources

Source group Length (m) Depth (m) Elevation (m)

Approach 15,000 543 728.5

Landing 15,000 457 228.5
Take-off roll Phase 1: 3.5 1.75
Runway 18R/36L: 3,750
Runways 18C/36C and
18L/36R: 4,100
Phase 4:
Runway 18C/36C: 4,100
Runways 18L/36R and
17R/35L: 3,750
Runway 09/27: 3,000

Initial Climb 5,750 457 228.5

Climb out 5,750 543 728.5

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Annex 7.2.C: Air Quality Measurement Results

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

 Environmental Consultancy Co.

ISTANBUL INTERNATINAL AIRPORT – ESIA

AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT RESULTS

SET 1

Table 1. PM10 Measurement Results – Set 1 (March 2014)

Date of Filter Date of Filter Results

Sampling Station Coordinates
Installment Removal (µg/m 3)

AKPINAR E: 651404
03.03.2014 04.03.2014 32.90
(AQ-PM1) N: 4571649
AGACLI E: 657145
07.03.2014 08.03.2014 41.61
(AQ-PM2) N: 4570117
ODAYERI E: 655148
06.03.2014 07.03.2014 52.71
(AQ-PM3) N: 4566686
IHSANIYE E: 651094
05.03.2014 06.03.2014 8.45
(AQ-PM4) N: 4567444
TAYAKADIN E: 641785
04.03.2014 05.03.2014 21.94
(AQ-PM5) N: 4570460
YENIKOY E: 644347
03.03.2014 04.03.2014 8.32
(AQ-PM6) N: 4575400
DURUSU ZAFER E: 640426
04.03.2014 05.03.2014 37.89
(AQ-PM7) N: 4573820
ARNAVUTKOY E: 647002
06.03.2014 07.03.2014 13.46
(AQ-PM8) N: 4565697

Page 1
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 2. Trace Metals in PM10 – Set 1 (March 2014)

Arsenic Copper Cadmium Cobalt Chrome Lead Molybdenum Nickel

Sampling Station
(µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3)
AKPINAR
0.007 0.005 0.0002 <0.0008 0.004 <0.004 0.004 <0.001
(AQ-PM1)
AGACLI
0.007 0.003 0.0005 <0.0008 0.026 0.017 0.004 <0.001
(AQ-PM2)
ODAYERI
0.006 0.001 0.0004 <0.0008 0.035 0.005 0.006 <0.001
(AQ-PM3)
IHSANIYE
0.012 0.009 0.0007 <0.0008 0.064 0.006 0.008 <0.001
(AQ-PM4)
TAYAKADIN
0.016 0.019 0.0007 <0.0008 0.073 0.016 0.007 <0.001
(AQ-PM5)
YENIKOY
0.011 0.008 0.0005 <0.0008 0.059 0.006 0.012 <0.001
(AQ-PM6)
DURUSU ZAFER
0.009 0.012 0.0005 <0.0008 0.029 0.015 0.004 <0.001
(AQ-PM7)
ARNAVUTKOY
0.013 0.009 0.0007 <0.0008 0.064 0.007 0.013 <0.001
(AQ-PM8)

Note: Coordinates of sampling stations are same with PM10 sampling stations

Page 2
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 3. Settled Dust Measurement Results – Set 1 (March-April 2014)

Result
Sampling Station Coordinates Measurement Period
(mg/m2day)
AKPINAR E: 651404
04.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 13.90
(AQ-SD1) N: 4571649
AGACLI E: 657145
07.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 27.83
(AQ-SD2) N: 4570117
ODAYERI E: 655148
07.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 18.94
(AQ-SD3) N: 4566686
IHSANIYE E: 651094
06.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 17.37
(AQ-SD4) N: 4567444
TAYAKADIN E: 641785
05.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 13.95
(AQ-SD5) N: 4570460
YENIKOY E: 644347
04.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 21.66
(AQ-SD6) N: 4575400
DURUSU ZAFER E: 640426
05.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 15.05
(AQ-SD7) N: 4573820
ARNAVUTKOY E: 647002
07.03.2014 - 17.04.2014 17.65
(AQ-SD8) N: 4565697

Page 3
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 4. Trace Metals in Settled Dust – Set 1 (March-April 2014)

Arsenic Copper Cadmium Cobalt Chrome Lead Molybdenum Nickel

Sampling Station
(µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day)
AKPINAR
<3.8 3.07 2.53 <0.5 <0.92 35.72 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD1)
AGACL
<3.8 22.28 0.179 2.31 3.34 8.16 <1.02 4.14
(AQ-SD2)
ODAYERI
<3.8 3.51 1.16 <0.5 <0.92 59.65 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD3)
IHSANIYE
<3.8 3.53 3.14 <0.5 <0.92 51.27 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD4)
TAYAKADIN
<3.8 2.00 1.61 3.15 6.15 139.6 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD5)
YENIKOY
<3.8 2.75 2.48 1.15 <0.92 32.30 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD6)
DURUSU ZAFER
<3.8 4.70 2.74 1.82 <0.92 78.96 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD7)
ARNAVUTKOY
<3.8 5.24 1.06 <0.5 <0.92 44.08 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD8)

Note: Coordinates of sampling stations are same with settled dust sampling stations

Page 4
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 5. NOx (NO2 and NO), SO2, VOC (Benzene and VOC- 1,3-Butadiene) Measurement Results (Passive Sampling) – Set 1 (March-April 2014)

NO2 NO NOx SO2 Benzene 1,3-Butadiene

Sampling Station Coordinates Date
(µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3)
AKPINAR E: 651225
24.47 11.53 36.00 13.44 0.60 0.17
(AQ-PS1) N: 4571523
AGACLI E: 657553
31.95 0.61 32.56 11.45 0.58 0.11
(AQ-PS2) N: 4570699
ODAYERI E: 655147
18.21 - 17.82 10.56 0.60 0.10
(AQ-PS3) N: 4566658
IHSANIYE E: 651038
14.73 13.20 27.93 11.49 0.80 0.18
(AQ-PS4) N: 4567332
21.03.2014 – 21.04.2014
TAYAKADIN E: 641676
19.77 7.24 27.02 18.50 0.78 0.13
(AQ-PS5) N: 4570400
YENIKOY E: 643400
10.13 6.71 16.84 5.72 0.46 0.11
(AQ-PS6) N: 4575478
DURUSU ZAFER E: 640447
12.07 8.80 20.86 11.95 0.74 0.14
(AQ-PS7) N: 4573996
ARNAVUTKOY E: 645723
14.53 10.22 24.75 5.46 0.82 <0.05
(AQ-PS8) N: 4565027

Notes: NO results are derived by subtracting NO2 from NOx

Where NO results have not been calculated result for NOx was lower than result for NO2
NO2, NO, NOx Results have been corrected to a temperature of 293K (20C)

Page 5
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Figure 1. Map Showing Air Quality Sampling Stations (Set 1)

Page 6
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

ISTANBUL INTERNATINAL AIRPORT – ESIA

AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT RESULTS

SET 2

Table 1. PM10 Measurement Results – Set 2 (May 2014)

Date of Filter Date of Filter Results

Sampling Station Coordinates
Installment Removal (µg/m 3)
AKPINAR E: 651404
15.05.2014 16.05.2014 41.70
(AQ-PM1) N: 4571649
(ASAGI) AGACLI E: 657145
12.05.2014 13.05.2014 10.45
(AQ-PM2) N: 4570117
ODAYERI * E: 655148
15.05.2014 16.05.2014 251.0
(AQ-PM3) N: 4566686
IHSANIYE E: 651094
14.05.2014 15.05.2014 50.90
(AQ-PM4) N: 4567444
TAYAKADIN E: 641785
13.05.2014 14.05.2014 19.46
(AQ-PM5) N: 4570460
YENIKOY E: 644378
14.05.2014 15.05.2014 24.99
(AQ-PM6) N: 4575359
DURUSU ZAFER E: 639261
14.05.2014 15.05.2014 13.92
(AQ-PM7) N: 4575086
ARNAVUTKOY E: 647002
12.05.2014 13.05.2014 37.34
(AQ-PM8) N: 4565697
YUKARI AGACLI E: 655383
12.05.2014 13.05.2014 25.0
(AQ-PM9) N: 4569299

* Located at a sensitive receptor (garden of a house) that is close to the main road having a high truck traffic load
(most probably due to construction activities in this region such as North Marmara Highway)

Page 1
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 2. Trace Metals in PM10 – Set 2 (May 2014)

Arsenic Copper Cadmium Cobalt Chrome Lead Molybdenum Nickel

Sampling Station
(µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3)
AKPINAR
0.029 0.168 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.033 0.049 0.003 0.073
(AQ-PM1)
(ASAGI) AGACLI
<0.006 0.530 <0.0005 <0.0008 4.97 4.97 0.006 0.035
(AQ-PM2)
ODAYERI
0.022 0.173 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.051 0.033 0.003 0.041
(AQ-PM3)
IHSANIYE
0.0089 0.099 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.039 0.028 0.014 0.029
(AQ-PM4)
TAYAKADIN
0.0134 2.49 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.264 0.052 0.005 0.062
(AQ-PM5)
YENIKOY
0.031 0.263 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.047 0.028 0.007 0.056
(AQ-PM6)
DURUSU ZAFER
0.018 0.107 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.039 0.011 0.004 0.017
(AQ-PM7)
ARNAVUTKOY
0.026 0.112 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.102 0.032 0.005 0.017
(AQ-PM8)
YUKARI AGACLI
0.0055 0.121 <0.0005 <0.0008 0.040 0.029 0.007 1.79
(AQ-PM9)

Note: Coordinates of sampling stations are same with PM10 sampling stations

Page 2
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 3. Settled Dust Measurement Results – Set 2 (May/June-June/July 2014)

Result
Sampling Station Coordinates Measurement Period
(mg/m2day)
AKPINAR E: 651404
15.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 14.01
(AQ-SD1) N: 4571649
(ASAGI) AGACLI E: 657145
13.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 37.09
(AQ-SD2) N: 4570117
ODAYERI * E: 655148
18.06.2014 - 16.07.2014 179,4
(AQ-SD3) N: 4566686
IHSANIYE E: 651094
14.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 26.55
(AQ-SD4) N: 4567444
TAYAKADIN E: 641785
14.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 38.66
(AQ-SD5) N: 4570460
YENIKOY E: 644347
14.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 65.04
(AQ-SD6) N: 4575400
DURUSU ZAFER E: 639261
14.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 25.21
(AQ-SD7) N: 4575086
ARNAVUTKOY E: 647002
13.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 15.36
(AQ-SD8) N: 4565697
YUKARI AGACLI E: 655383
13.05.2014 - 18.06.2014 50.00
(AQ-SD9) N: 4569299

* Located at a sensitive receptor (garden of a house) that is close to the main road having a high truck traffic load
(most probably due to construction activities in this region such as North Marmara Highway)

Page 3
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 4. Trace Metals in Settled Dust – Set 2 (May/June-June/July 2014)

Arsenic Copper Cadmium Cobalt Chrome Lead Molybdenum Nickel

Sampling Station
(µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day) (µg/m 2day)
AKPINAR
<3.8 0.30 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 0.43 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD1)
(ASAGI) AGACLI
<3.8 0.32 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 1.91 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD2)
ODAYERI
<3.8 1.40 0.76 <0.5 <0.92 5.44 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD3)
IHSANIYE
<3.8 0.42 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 3.23 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD4)
TAYAKADIN
<3.8 0.59 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 0.97 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD5)
YENIKOY
<3.8 2.45 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 3.84 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD6)
DURUSU ZAFER
<3.8 0.74 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 1.49 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD7)
ARNAVUTKOY
<3.8 0.43 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 <0.37 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD8)
YUKARI AGACLI
<3.8 0.25 <0.5 <0.5 <0.92 1.63 <1.02 <0.62
(AQ-SD9)

Note: Coordinates of sampling stations are same with settled dust sampling stations

Page 4
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Table 5. NOx (NO2 and NO), SO2, VOC (Benzene and VOC- 1,3-Butadiene) Measurement Results (Passive Sampling) – Set 2 (May/June 2014)

NO2 NO NOx SO2 Benzene 1,3-Butadiene

Sampling Station Coordinates Date
(µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3)
AKPINAR E: 651229
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.33 13.88 14.21 1.53 0.44 <0.05
(AQ-PS1) N: 4571538
(ASAGI) AGACLI E: 657566
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.30 11.48 11.77 1.97 <0.19 <0.05
(AQ-PS2) N: 4570627
ODAYERI E: 655147
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.28 15.34 15.62 1.09 0.43 <0.05
(AQ-PS3) N: 4566686
IHSANIYE * E: 651038
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 -* -* -* -* -* -*
(AQ-PS4) N: 4567332
TAYAKADIN E: 641678
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.52 10.31 10.82 2.64 0.66 <0.05
(AQ-PS5) N: 4570395
YENIKOY E: 643490
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.28 13.92 14.19 1.47 0.49 <0.05
(AQ-PS6) N: 4575475
DURUSU ZAFER E: 640441
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.24 12.47 12.71 0.94 0.47 <0.05
(AQ-PS7) N: 4573897
ARNAVUTKOY E: 645666
21.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.37 11.83 12.20 1.14 0.70 <0.05
(AQ-PS8) N: 4563882
YUKARI AGACLI E: 655627
31.05.2014 – 21.06.2014 0.52 11.88 12.39 <1.40 0.43 <0.07
(AQ-PS9) N: 4569215

* Passive tubes located at Ihsaniye Sampling Location (AQ-PS4) were lost/missing when the team went to collect them.

Notes: NO results are derived by subtracting NO2 from NOx

NO2, NO, NOx Results have been corrected to a temperature of 293K (20C)

Page 5
 Environmental Consultancy Co.

Figure 1. Map Showing Air Quality Sampling Stations (Set 2)

Page 6
IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Annex 7.2.D: Concentration Maps

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

 Ü

0 500 1 000 2 000

Figure 7.2.D.1: Modelled emission Scale : Meters

Legend sources - Phase 4 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel Site : Proposed Istambul Airport
Emission sources 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 #Karaburun
Ü
#Yenikoy

#Durusu

#Akpinar
#Tayakadin
#Agacli
#Yukari Agacli

#Ihsaniye
#Odayeri
#Isiklar

#Imrahor
0 500 1 000 2 000
Figure 7.2.D.2: Receptors Scale :
Legend
Meters
Client : IGA
52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors #Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10
Air Quality assessment
Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey
Site : Proposed Istambul Airport
Project N° : UK1421429
Date : April 2015
Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
NO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2022) Odayeri
< 10 Isiklar
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40 Imrahor
40 - 60
60 - 80 Figure 7.2.D.3: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

> 80 average NO2 concentration - Phase 1 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2022) Odayeri
< 0,1 Isiklar
0.1 - 1
1-2
2-4 Imrahor
4-6
6-8 Figure 7.2.D.4: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

>8 average PM10 concentration - Phase 1 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2022) Odayeri
<2 Isiklar
2-5
5 - 10
10 - 20 Imrahor
20 - 30
30 - 50 Figure 7.2.D.5: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

> 50 average SO2 concentration - Phase 1 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
NO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2042) Odayeri
< 10 Isiklar
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40 Imrahor
40 - 60
60 - 80 Figure 7.2.D.6: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

> 80 average NO2 concentration - Phase 4 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2042) Odayeri
< 0.1 Isiklar
0.1 - 1
1-2
2-4 Imrahor
4-6
6-8 Figure 7.2.D.7: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

>8 average PM10 concentration - Phase 4 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
 Karaburun
Ü
Yenikoy

Durusu

Akpinar

Tayakadin

Agacli

Yukari Agacli

Ihsaniye
SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
(Annual average - 2042) Odayeri
<2 Isiklar
2-5
5 - 10
10 - 20 Imrahor
20 - 30
30 - 50 Figure 7.2.D.8: Airport contribution to Scale : 0 500 1 000 2 000
Meters

> 50 average SO2 concentration - Phase 4 Client : IGA

52 Rue Etienne Marcel
# Receptors Arnavutkoy 75002 Paris Air Quality assessment Site : Proposed Istambul Airport Date : April 2015
+33 (0)1 42 71 11 10 Proposed Istambul Airport, Turquey Project N° : UK1421429 Drawn by : YLO
IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Annex 7.2.E: Concentration at Receptors

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.1.E Modelling Results for NO2 and SO2 Concentrations – Phase 1, 2022

NO2 concentration (µg/m3) SO2 concentration (µg/m3)

Receptors
1h Year 1h 24 h

Agacli 70,7 1,4 15,5 2,6

Akpinar 72,1 2,1 19,9 4,6

Arnavutkoy 71,1 3,5 15,8 4,7

Durusu 75,1 6,1 18,6 6,3

Ihsaniye 73,2 3,3 16,7 6,4

Imrahor 77,0 4,1 19,7 5,0

Isiklar 73,8 2,8 15,9 5,3

Karaburun 71,5 2,0 15,9 3,5

Odayeri 68,2 2,2 13,1 4,6

Tayakadin 78,6 11,2 23,5 11,2

Yenikoy 73,0 3,3 18,6 4,6

Yukari Agacli 72,7 1,7 15,8 2,6

Table 7.2.2.E Modelling Results for PM and CO Concentrations – Phase 1, 2022

PM10 /PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3) CO concentration (mg/m3)

Receptors
24 h Year 8h

Agacli 0,3 0,02 0,2

Akpinar 0,8 0,03 0,3

Arnavutkoy 0,9 0,08 0,2

Durusu 0,6 0,08 0,2

Ihsaniye 1,0 0,08 0,3

Imrahor 0,9 0,11 0,3

Isiklar 0,9 0,07 0,3

Karaburun 0,4 0,03 0,2

Odayeri 0,5 0,04 0,2

Tayakadin 1,1 0,22 0,4

Yenikoy 0,5 0,05 0,2

Yukari Agacli 0,4 0,03 0,2

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON

IGA ESIA
Istanbul New Airport

Table 7.2.3.E Modelling Results for NO2 and SO2 Concentrations – Phase 4, 2042

NO2 concentration (µg/m3) SO2 concentration (µg/m3)

Receptors
1h Year 1h 24 h

Agacli 93,5 3,6 53,5 10,6

Akpinar 95,9 7,9 55,1 17,6

Arnavutkoy 85,0 7,5 28,9 12,4

Durusu 90,5 9,4 51,4 14,8

Ihsaniye 92,8 11,2 51,3 19,3

Imrahor 84,3 9,4 35,1 14,8

Isiklar 90,9 8,2 49,5 15,4

Karaburun 85,0 4,2 37,1 8,2

Odayeri 88,5 5,8 46,8 19,4

Tayakadin 97,8 13,5 60,6 23,7

Yenikoy 84,7 6,8 33,5 12,1

Yukari Agacli 94,6 4,7 57,2 11,5

Table 7.2.4.E Modelling Results for PM and CO Concentrations – Phase 4, 2042

PM10 /PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3) CO concentration (mg/m3)

Receptors
24 h Year 8h

Agacli 0.9 0.07 0.7

Akpinar 2.2 0.17 0.9

Arnavutkoy 1.5 0.16 0.5

Durusu 1.4 0.20 0.7

Ihsaniye 2.2 0.26 0.8

Imrahor 1.7 0.23 0.5

Isiklar 1.5 0.18 0.7

Karaburun 0.8 0.06 0.4

Odayeri 1.4 0.13 0.8

Tayakadin 1.9 0.39 0.9

Yenikoy 1.2 0.12 0.5

Yukari Agacli 1.0 0.10 0.7

UK14-21429 Issue: 4 ENVIRON