选择超滤（UF）技术来升级现有的10- 每天百万加仑（mgd）地表水处理厂。UF提供了一种经济高效的解决方案 遵守新的饮用水法规并满足其他运营要求的方法 目标。 Mission San Jose水处理厂（MSJWTP）由 阿拉米达县水区（ACWD）。该工厂建于20世纪70年代中期 并使用常规处理（即凝固、澄清、颗粒介质过滤、， 和氯化）。该工厂处理通过管道输送的加利福尼亚州供水项目用水 南湾渡槽（SBA）。ACWD计划对工厂进行升级，使其符合要求 随着饮用水法规即将发生的变化，并改善其整体性能 可靠性 工厂升级将使工厂符合新消毒剂的要求/ 消毒副产物（D/DBP）规则和强化地表水处理规则 （ESWTR）。ACWD还希望在任何时候都能可靠地生产至少8 mgd的水 夏季10毫克/日。目前，原水温度和pH值的昼夜波动导致沉淀水浊度上升至10 NTU或以上，进而导致 短时间的过滤器运行。由于这种现象和其他设施的限制，现有的 工厂的工艺不能可靠地达到生产目标。另一个 升级需要解决的重要水质问题是对味道和水质的控制 原水中藻类产生的气味。这类问题对许多人来说都很常见 传统的水处理厂。膜过滤的吸引力之一是 它对给水浊度的敏感性远不如颗粒介质过滤。 此外，UF可以完全去除原生动物，显著去除病毒， 从而将消毒要求降至最低。 本文讨论了该方法的可行性和成本效益 用于替代现有颗粒介质过滤器的超滤（UF）膜工艺。这个 决定是否继续UF系统安装以升级ACWD MSJWTP的关键在于确认这项技术符合该地区制定的净化水质量目标，并且从净现值来看成本较低 与传统的中间臭氧氧化处理相比，该方法具有更高的价值。 根据初步可行性研究的结论，选择了超滤 微滤，以便在继续进行MSJWTP初步试验时进行进一步评估 设计作为初步设计的一部分，进行了超滤膜中试研究 评估工作。六个月的测试期为比较评估提供了时间 三个UF试验装置在南湾原水和试验澄清水上运行。为试点研究确定了以下目标: 展示并比较三家不同超滤（UF）膜供应商系统的运行性能和去除能力； 评估UF膜中试系统的运行性能以及不同给水条件下UF工艺的UF渗透水质量 （例如，未净化给水与净化给水）并确认最佳工艺 序列 确定膜性能标准，该标准适用于预处理- 资格认证或采购前投标文件包； 根据中试规模估算膜设施资本和运维成本 表演和 通过对试点测试的明智投资，实现总体项目成本节约。 包括表格，如图所示。

Ultrafiltration (UF) was selected over other technologies for upgrading an existing 10- million gallon per day (mgd) surface water treatment plant. UF provides a cost-effective approach to comply with new drinking water regulations and meet other operational objectives. The Mission San Jose Water Treatment Plant (MSJWTP) is owned and operated by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The plant was constructed in the mid-1970's and uses conventional treatment (i.e., coagulation, clarification, granular media filtration, and chlorination). The plant treats California State Water Project water delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). ACWD has plans to upgrade the plant to allow it to comply with upcoming changes in the drinking water regulations and to improve its overall reliability. The plant upgrades will enable the plant to comply with the new Disinfectant/ Disinfection By-Product (D/DBP) Rule and the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR). ACWD also wants to reliably produce a minimum of 8 mgd at all times and 10 mgd in the summer months. Currently, diurnal raw water temperature and pH fluctuations cause settled water turbidity to rise to 10 NTU or more and in turn cause short filter runs. Because of this phenomenon and other facility limitations, the existing plant's processes are not capable of meeting the production targets reliably. Another important water quality issue to be addressed by the upgrades is control of tastes and odors caused by algae in the raw water. This type of problem is common to many conventional water treatment plants. One of the attractions of membrane filtration is that it is not nearly as sensitive to feedwater turbidity as is granular media filtration. Furthermore, UF can achieve complete protozoan removal and significant virus removal, thus minimizing disinfection requirements. This paper discusses the feasibility and cost effectiveness of ultrafiltration (UF) membrane processes for replacing existing granular media filters. The decision whether to proceed with UF system installation for upgrade of ACWD's MSJWTP hinged on the confirmation that this technology met the treated water quality goals established by the District and proved less expensive on a net present value basis than conventional treatment with intermediate ozonation. Based upon conclusions of initial feasibility studies, ultrafiltration was selected over microfiltration for further evaluation in the continuation of the MSJWTP preliminary design. A UF membrane pilot study was conducted as a part of the preliminary design evaluation effort. The six-month testing period allowed time for comparative evaluation of three UF pilot units on raw and pilot-clarified waters from the South Bay. The following objectives were established for the pilot study: demonstrate and compare the operational performance and removal capabilities of systems from three different ultrafiltration (UF) membrane suppliers; evaluate the operational performance of UF membrane pilot systems and the UF permeate water quality of the UF processes under different feedwater conditions (e.g., raw feedwater vs. clarified feedwater) and confirm the best process sequence; determine membrane performance criteria appropriate for inclusion in a pre- qualification or pre-purchase bid package; estimate membrane facility capital and O&M costs based on pilot-scale performance; and, achieve overall project cost savings through judicious investment in pilot testing. Includes tables, figure.