The application of SRF vs. RDF classification and specifications to the material flows of two mechanical-biological treatment plants of Rome: Comparison and implications

This work assessed the quality in terms of solid recovered fuel (SRF) definitions of the dry light flow (until now indicated as refuse derived fuel, RDF), heavy rejects and stabilisation rejects, produced by two mechanical biological treatment plants of Rome (Italy). SRF classification and specifications were evaluated first on the basis of RDF historical characterisation methods and data and then applying the sampling and analytical methods laid down by the recently issued SRF standards. The results showed that the dry light flow presented a worst SRF class in terms of net calorific value applying the new methods compared to that obtained from RDF historical data (4 instead of 3). This lead to incompliance with end of waste criteria established by Italian legislation for SRF use as co‐fuel in cement kilns and power plants. Furthermore, the metal contents of the dry light flow obtained applying SRF current methods proved to be considerably higher (although still meeting SRF specifications) compared to those resulting from historical data retrieved with RDF standard methods. These differences were not related to a decrease in the quality of the dry light flow produced in the mechanical‐biological treatment plants but rather to the different sampling procedures set by the former RDF and current SRF standards. In particular, the shredding of the sample before quartering established by the latter methods ensures that also the finest waste fractions, characterised by higher moisture and metal contents, are included in the sample to be analysed, therefore affecting the composition and net calorific value of the waste. As for the reject flows, on the basis of their SRF classification and specification parameters, it was found that combined with the dry light flow they may present similar if not the same class codes as the latter alone, thus indicating that these material flows could be also treated in combustion plants instead of landfilled. In conclusion, the introduction of SRF definitions, classification and specification procedures, while not necessarily leading to an upgrade of the waste as co‐fuel in cement kilns and power plants, may anyhow provide new possibilities for energy recovery from waste by increasing the types of mechanically treated waste flows that may be thermally treated.