The Greenpeace study, aimed at compromising the work of the Bobov Dol Thermal Power Plant, conducted with plastic tubes, proves that the plant does not exceed the permissible norms, even the opposite.
The technology used by them shows huge discrepancies between the official measuring station, costing over 250,000 euros, installed a little over a year ago according to all European rules, and the indicative tube study. The way it was done is questioned - whether the samples are clean, how they are stored, how they are transported, etc. After all the conventions with which data are presented in a superficially sketched report, the figures still show that the Bobov Dol TPP does not pollute above the permissible standards.
The applied diffusion tube method is not an officially recognized measurement method, but is an indicative method and should be proven through correlation between the values from the two studies in order to recognize the data as valid. This means that the values cannot and should not be equated to the values from the recognized reference methods from the Automatic Measuring Station / AIS / or a laboratory accredited by the ExEa, before the method is validated.
There is an Ordinance in Bulgarian legislation that regulates the values for the sulfur dioxide indicator and there they are clearly described:
Average hourly norm — 350 micrograms / m3
Average daily norm — 125 micrograms/m3
Annual norm — 20 micrograms/m3.
The norms that should be observed are these and the data from AIS, as well as mobile accredited laboratories, are now clear and accessible to the residents of the village of Golemo Selo. The newly invented average monthly norm by the Greens does not exist, which means that there is no methodology and rules for its calculation.
It is very important to mention that AIS Golemo Selo is a station of the Regional Inspectorate for Environment, Water and Water, which is calibrated unlike the three tubes placed in different places by Greenpeace.
If an analysis is to be made and the data between the Greenpeace study and the values from the Automatic Measuring Station are to be compared, then Greenpeace should measure for a long period of time, prove that the method is relevant and then we can say whether or not there is any difference between the values. At this stage, this is a big speculation, which aims to create fears among the local population and to tarnish the prestige of a large enterprise, which is an employer in a region with high unemployment.
Then, when the tubes prove that there are excesses of the values under the Regulation, then it would make sense to have a debate on the topic.
Even with the values described now, the GP shows that the Norms are respected, because there is not a single excess and everything else is speculation.
After the published study, we received support from leading companies in the field of environmental protection in Bulgaria, who are ready to provide full cooperation in proving that Greenpeace's claims are an absolute manipulation, in the way they were made and presented.
In the report presented by Greenpeace, the data are also compared with the automatic stations of the External Environmental Agency, as their laboratories are reference for Bulgaria, unlike the indicative method that disputes.