County and city staff outline air‑quality monitoring, Aspen selected as wastewater sentinel; airport VOC sampling planned

Natalie Sebdos, Aspen’s air quality program manager, and Kurt Dahl, Pitkin County environmental health manager, briefed the Board of Health on July 11 about local air‑quality monitoring, historical improvements on PM10 and a pending airport‑area study to sample criteria pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Key points: Natalie reviewed Aspen’s air‑monitoring network (a regulatory particulate monitor on the yellow brick building, a regulatory ozone monitor at the Gulf Pump House and a set of PurpleAir sensors). She said Aspen’s air quality is "good" on most days and that the city and county have maintained attainment for PM10 and ozone in recent years after adopting measures such as year‑round street sweeping, limits on wood burning and restaurant grill controls.

Natalie explained statewide wastewater changes and the sentinel selection process (Aspen and Glenwood chosen as tourism‑representative sentinel sites). Kurt described the airport‑sponsored studies: the airport has contracted for greenhouse‑gas and ambient‑air quality work and the contractor will return to the stakeholder group with a plan that will propose the use of monitors and sensors for pollutants including PM2.5, PM10, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and VOCs. "The VOC component came from complaints... what we presume are unburned fuel," Kurt said; the group asked the contractor to evaluate how best to sample and distinguish jet fuel, diesel or gasoline VOC signatures and to assess any exposure against occupational standards from NIOSH/OSHA if needed.

Community concerns: speakers asked whether odors perceived near Buttermilk and the highway were from the airport or vehicle traffic. Staff said distinguishing sources requires targeted sampling and potentially a source‑apportionment approach; they proposed considering additional monitoring near the runway and along the highway corridor to capture both airport and traffic contributions.

Next steps: the contractor is expected to propose specific monitoring locations and a sampling plan; staff indicated that once the airport study plan is available they will consider adding more monitors across the highway and may return to the board with a recommendation. Natalie and Kurt encouraged residents to use live air‑quality data on the city website and to subscribe to local alerts if needed.

Ending: Kurt said contractor results were expected in the coming weeks and flagged that electrification of ground operations at the airport could reduce localized emissions in future.