When to Consider Distributed Systems in an Urban and Suburban Context

1 | P a g e


CASE STUDY: PHILIP MERRILL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER BUILDING, CHESAPEAKE
BAY FOUNDATION

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Location: Annapolis, Maryland (latitude: 3855'57 N ; longitude: 7627'45 W)
Collection: Graywater and extra fluid from
composting toilets are piped to the
Annapolis sewer system via an injector
pump inside the building. The Annapolis
Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on
Edgewood Road next to Back Creek, is
jointly owned and funded by the city and
county but are operated and maintained
by the county.
Treatment: Clivus Multrum composting
toilets.
Product disposition: Compost is reused
onsite for landscape purposes. Graywater and residual compost fluids pumped into central
sewer for treatment and discharge. The plan is to eventually treat and reuse all liquids onsite.
Flowrate: Liquid flow to sewer is approximately 0.34 m
3
/d (90 gpd), or 10% of standard
design. The facilities manager estimates that approximately 50 wheelbarrows of compost have
been generated over the life of the building (since 2001).
Service Area: Two-story office building that houses the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
headquarters, which is occupied by between 75 to 100 staff, plus guests who attend training
and other events in the building and on the grounds, and includes onsite showers and laundry
facilities.
Case Study Type: Green building with onsite reuse of compost (carbon/nutrient recycling).
Management Type: Private, with interconnection to public sewer system.
Cost: $25,000 for composting toilets of about $7.2 million for entire project.

Photos licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 License. Photo credit:
www.flickr.com/photos/theregeneration/2916405475/
When to Consider Distributed Systems in an Urban and Suburban Context
2 | P a g e


DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is a nonprofit organization with a mission that includes
fighting for strong and effective laws and regulations and working cooperatively with
government, business, and citizens in partnerships to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2001, CBF constructed a new 3000 m
2
(32,000 sq ft) headquarter building, the Phillip Merrill
Environmental Center, located along the Bay in Annapolis, Maryland. The center was the first
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum building, as certified by the
U.S. Green Building Council.
The building uses several strategies to reduce energy demand by 40%, and uses composting
toilets and low-flow fixtures to cut water use by more than 90% versus standard practices. The
two-story office and conference building includes upper-floor restrooms that use Clivus
Multrum foam-flush toilets and first-floor restrooms that use standard Clivus Multrum
composting toilets. Toilet wastes are composted in the building basement; extra fluid is
pumped along with graywater from lavatories, sinks, showers, and laundry into the central
sewer system of the Annapolis Wastewater Treatment Plant. The compost is reused onsite.
Future plans include reusing all water onsite.
PROJECT GOALS
Sustainability objectives for the project included protecting the bay from phosphorus and
nitrogen by taking them out of the sewer waste stream, and reusing or recycling them onsite
for plant uptake. The CBF has more than 25 years of experience with composting toilets and
wanted to showcase their use in this building.
TIMELINE
Building planning involved a special committee. The system took a few years to plan and
design; construction was completed in 2001 and has been operating since.
DECISION MAKING
The CBF and their building committee made the decision to use composting toilets in the
building with professional input from the design team. The organizations mission to protect
the bay, particularly from nutrient loading, and to provide education and outreach on
sustainable water management drove decision-making.
Centralized treatment was available for all wastewater, but selecting alternative options
showed the CBFs commitment to reducing its environmental impacts and educating the
public. Decision-making also was influenced by the objective to reach a LEED Platinum rating,
When to Consider Distributed Systems in an Urban and Suburban Context
3 | P a g e

which gave credit to both the water conservation and innovative wastewater management
elements of the project.
The CBF selected all water management technologies. Previous positive experiences with
composting toilets and a desire to showcase the
technology in an educational environment
influenced selection of this technology. Based on
their past experiences, CBF also found composting
toilets to be easy to maintain and have minimal
water and energy requirements.
Internal stakeholders included CBFs board and
executive committee and their members. External
stakeholders included the city and the Anne
Arundel County Health Department.
Although some local residents ideally would have
preferred that the property be converted to a park
after removing the old inn and event center, a large
hotel chain also was looking at the property, which
would have had a greater environmental and
aesthetic impact. Since the center has been in
operation, the community has strongly supported
its programs.


CHALLENGES
One challenge that prevents wider implementation of alternative water technologies is a lack
of commitment to spend more money up front to meet low-energy and water goals. With this
project, CBF was able to show payback from reduced water, sewer and energy bills; the
composting toilets were shown to have a simple payback period of less than 10 years.
One hurdle that remains for this particular project is that the onsite graywater treatment
system has not been designed, permitted, and constructed because of concerns about the
logistics and close proximity to the bay. The CBF, however, is committed to making this work
someday.
FINANCING
All funding was provided by CBF. Actual costs for the entire facility were higher than
predicted, partly because the CBF changed their commitment from wanting to meet LEED
Photos licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 License.
Photo credit:
www.flickr.com/photos/theregeneration/2917294886/
When to Consider Distributed Systems in an Urban and Suburban Context
4 | P a g e

Gold to Platinum. Additionally, designers used life-cycle assessment, rather than lowest cost,
as a tool to choose materials.
Funds for the building were raised through a special building campaign and private donations.
No money came from regular membership revenues. The total cost for the building over the
term of its loan is less than the client would pay in rent for a similarly sized facility. The total
cost for the project, including land acquisition, savings from easements, and the sale of
existing properties, was $11.6 million. Total project cost not including the land was $7.5
million.
MANAGEMENT
The CBF owns and operates and maintains the system through its facilities department,
including turning the compost piles as needed (approximately once per week) and stocking
and installing replacement fans and small pumps when needed at a cost of approximately
$400 to $500 per year.
The CBF had staff with experience in operating the composting systems, so they chose to do
the work themselves. No local authority was available for managing system.
PERMITS
The project required a building permit and sewer hookup from the city of Annapolis. No
permit renewal fees are related to the wastewater system. The only permit requirement was
to have signs posted at the sinks indicating that harvested rainwater was being used.
PERFORMANCE
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory monitored energy and water consumption and has
confirmed the building is meeting its environmental performance goals established by its LEED
Platinum rating. The CBF additionally tracks its energy use and conducts regular maintenance
to ensure efficient operations. This includes replacing fans when they get clogged and start
using more energy.
Water consumption is 94% less than a conventional building, and the centers total four-year
average water savings were approximately 7,600 m
3
(2 million gallons), saving CBF nearly
$8,000 in water and sewer costs. Average daily water use is 0.34 m
3
/d (90 gpd), more than
two-thirds of which is harvested rainwater (normal daily use would be about 5.7 m
3
/d [1500
gpd] without water-saving technologies). Composting toilets save approximately $2,100 per
year on water and sewage rates compared to an office of 100 people with conventional
toilets.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Don Mills, Clivus Multrum Inc.; (978)725-5591; e-mail: donmills@clivusmultrum.com
When to Consider Distributed Systems in an Urban and Suburban Context
5 | P a g e

Rich Moore, CBF facilities manager; e-mail: rmoore@cbf.org.
WEBSITES
www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=389
www.clivusmultrum.com/proj_greenbuilding.shtml
www.cbf.org
www.smithgroup.com/index.aspx?id=637&section=34
www.smithgroup.com/repository/documents/1130.pdf
http://eere.buildinggreen.com/overview.cfm?projectid=69