The 2.1 tons we still landfill
Our diversion rate is 97%. The largest single line in the missing 3% is filter media from our own water recovery loop, and we have been writing the same paragraph about it for four years.
- Sheet
- 18
- Revision
- 2026-10
- Scale
- 1:1
- Drawn at
- Peoria IL
The closed-loop wash bay is the capital project we would defend hardest. It took fresh water consumption from sixty gallons per container to 4.1. It also created a waste stream we cannot get rid of, which is the sort of trade nobody puts in a sustainability brochure.
The loop works by filtration: everything that drains from the bays and the paved yard goes to a 6,000-gallon sump, through an oil-water separator, settles, then passes a 25-micron bag filter and a 5-micron cartridge before going back to pre-rinse and detergent duty. Those filters do exactly what they are supposed to do, and then they are spent, contaminated, mixed-material consumables with no route anywhere.
| Stream | 2025 tonnage | Where it goes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spent filter media | 2.1 t | Landfill via licensed processor | No route found |
| Wash sludge | 8.4 t | Licensed processor, partly energy recovery | Sludge-to-fuel partner targeted 2029 |
| Gasket rubber | 1.4 t | Landfill as residual | Recyclable compound targeted 2028 |
| Label adhesive and backing | 0.9 t | Landfill as residual | Adhesive-free placards targeted 2027 |
What we have actually tried
- Asked both filter suppliers whether they take media back. Neither does, and neither knew of anybody who does.
- Approached three regional waste-to-energy operators. Two declined on contamination grounds; one quoted a figure that made the loop uneconomic.
- Tried extending media life with coarser pre-filtration. It worked — media consumption fell about 14% — and it did not change the destination.
- Looked at cleanable media. Washing a filter with water from the loop it filters is a circular argument in the unhelpful sense; the backwash becomes the problem instead.
- Costed a centrifuge to replace bag filtration entirely. Technically plausible, commercially out of reach for a yard our size, and it would produce a different residual anyway.
Why we keep publishing it
Because 97% is a claim and the 3% is the evidence that the claim is counted honestly. A diversion figure with no itemised residual is a figure somebody rounded. Ours has four lines, three of them have dated commitments in the circular standard, and the fourth has had nothing but this paragraph for four years.
- It is 2.1 tons against 41,200 containers handled — about 0.1 lb per container.
- It is the direct cost of saving roughly 224,000 gallons of fresh water a year.
- We would make the same trade again, and we would rather state it than bury it in a methodology note.
- If a reader knows a processor who takes contaminated mixed-polymer filtration media in the Midwest, we would genuinely like to hear from them.
“Every environmental improvement is a trade. The honest version of the story names what you traded away.”
— Introduction to our 2025 report
The three we do have plans for
Adhesive-free placards
De-labelling currently generates adhesive and backing waste. Mechanical placard fixing removes the stream entirely and reduces a wash step. Trials running now on two grades.
Recyclable gasket compound
EPDM performs and does not recycle. We need a compound that matches it on chemical compatibility and compression set, which is a qualification problem rather than a procurement one.
Sludge to fuel
A regional partner exists for oily sludge energy recovery. We have not closed it, and the hold-up is characterisation paperwork rather than willingness.
Audit the commitments
Each of these is published with its metric, its current number and its deadline. Ask for the audit packet and check them against us.