1. Modeling Overview For Barrio Logan Community Health Neighborhood Assessment Program Andrew Ranzieri Vlad Isakov Tony Servin Shuming Du October 10, 2001 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

2. MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION A scientific process to ensure models are working properly and predict reliable concentrations A scientific process to ensure models are working properly and predict reliable concentrations Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

3. Microscale Tracer Experiment at Barrio Logan l Tracer Experiment conducted from August 21-30, 2001 l Hourly SF6 concentrations sampled at 50 sites l Tracer released at NASSO during daytime from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. l Mobile van sampled continuously to measure crosswind SF6 concentrations l Mini-sodar to measure vertical winds up to 200m at 5m resolution l Six sonic anemometers to measure surface level winds and turbulence Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

4. Microscale Tracer Experiment at Barrio Logan

5. Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Tracer Data l Contractor is conducting QA analysis on data sets to assure quality data l ARB evaluating non-QA data for SF6 and meteorology l Not all meteorological data are currently available (sonics) l Conducting “preliminary” data analysis Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

6. Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale l Plotting hourly SF6 data (spatial maps) to understand data set and identify outliers 4 consistency between winds and concentrations 4 identify plume centerline and plume width 4 evaluate downwind dilution ratios 4 identify data sets for initial model testing and performance evaluation 4 work with contractor to resolve problems Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

7. l ARB/UCR are conducting preliminary modeling to assist in QA work and provide “fast track” modeling results 4ISCST3 4AERMOD 4CALPUFF 4UCR Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

8. l Preliminary results from data analysis and model performance - ISCST3 results Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Meteorology from NASSCO ( sonic ) Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

9. l Preliminary results from data analysis and model performance - ISCST3 results Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Meteorology from Logan HS ( sodar ) Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

10. l Preliminary results from data analysis and model performance - ISCST3 results Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Meteorology from Lindbergh ( NWS data ) Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

11. l Preliminary results - comparison of ISCST3 results with observations (selected days/hours) Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

12. l Preliminary results - comparison of ISCST3 results with observations (all days) Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

13. l Preliminary results - comparison of ISCST3 results with observations (all data) Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

14. l l Preliminary modeling results: CALPUFF, 08/21/01, 11 a.m. Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

15. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF - all data Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

16. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF - all data Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

17. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF, Run-length average Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

18. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF (without turbulence profile data) - selected data set, correlation coefficient = 0.747 Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

19. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF (without turbulence profile data) - selected data set Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

20. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF - Two examples of hourly comparison n n Two examples are closely examined – –one good case: hour 11,8/21/2001 – –one bad case: hour 21, 8/29/2001 These two examples suggest that wind direction has a controlling effect on estimating concentrations. Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

21. l l CALPUFF modeling results at hour 11, 8/21/2001 Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

22. l l CALPUFF modeling results at hour 21, 8/29/2001 Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

23. l l CALPUFF modeling results at hour 21, 8/29/2001 (wind direction is shifted to make the predicted plume line up with the observed) Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

24. l l Comparison between observations and predictions of CALPUFF Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Comparison between peak concentrations along monitoring arcs (1000 m, & 2000 m) Comparison between peak concentrations along monitoring arcs (500m, 1000 m, & 2000 m) Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

25. l l Planning for the winter tracer experiment Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale n During the winter time it is more difficult to choose suitable monitoring locations because of the high variability of wind direction n Several examples are presented to show the variability of daytime wind direction during winter is higher than during summer Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

26. l l CALPUFF result for monthly average in January (left) and August (right) 2000 Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale

27. l l CALPUFF results: hour 10, 1/18/00 (left), hour 11, 1/18/000 (middle), and hour 14, 1/18/00 (right) Status of Performance Evaluation – Microscale Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

28. l Defined modeling domain l Generated 3-dimensional winds and temperatures for 1998 using MM5 for input to CMAQ l Generated 3-dimensional winds using CALMET for input to UAM l Development of gridded emissions inventory l Initial testing of CMAQ to estimate secondary pollutants l Comparison of CMAQ results with other models and observations Status of Model Performance Evaluation - Regional Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

29. l CMAQ (1 day 08/05/97) 2 - 10 (San Diego) 2 - 18 (Los Angeles) l EPA OZIPR (summer) 8 - 19 (Los Angeles) EPA OZIPR (ann. avg.) 14.5 (Los Angeles) 1.1 - primary, 13.4 - secondary l CALINE (annual avg.) 0.1- 0.2 (Barrio Logan) - primary l ISCST3 (annual avg.) < 1 (Barrio Logan) - primary l Observed (ann. avg., 97) 2.9 (San Diego, Chula Vista) 4.5 (Los Angeles, N. Long Beach) 1.4 - 5.5 (Barrio Logan, 1999-2000 monthly averages) monthly averages) Initial Model Testing: CMAQ Formaldehyde Concentrations [µg/m 3 ] Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

30. Future Work l Conduct another SF6 tracer experiment at Barrio Logan and VOC sampling at Barrio Logan (November 15 – January 15, 2002) l Evaluate microscale modeling for summer and winter time conditions at Barrio Logan l Recommend models for neighborhood assessment MICROSCALE MODELING Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

31. Future Work l Assess accuracy of emission inventory estimates at Barrio Logan l Generate gridded hourly emissions inventory for 1998 for input to CMAQ and UAM EMISSIONS INVENTORY Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

32. Future Work l Evaluate regional performance for CMAQ and UAM for hourly, 24 hour, and annual averaging times l Predict spatially resolved annual ambient toxic concentrations for southern California REGIONAL MODELING Working Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote