Asbestos Gravel in Burgenland: Facts, Finds and Open Questions

What happened?

On 2 January 2026, four quarries in southern Burgenland (Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Postmann [postal Rumpersdorf, cadastral municipality Glashütten bei Schlaining] and Badersdorf) were closed by the Austrian authorities. The reason: official material samples from November 2025 found quarry-specific asbestos contents of 2 to 100 percent in the extracted serpentinite. The legal basis for the closures was § 175 of the Mineral Raw Materials Act ("imminent danger"), ordered by the responsible district authorities (Bezirkshauptmannschaften).

At the same time, the regulation was tightened: on 31 December 2025 the GKV amendment (BGBl. II No. 339/2025, transposing EU Directive 2023/2668) took effect and lowered the Austrian workplace limit for asbestos fibres from 100,000 to 10,000 fibres per cubic metre of air (second step 2,000 F/m³ from 21 December 2029; Schumann, 4053/AB-BR/2026, question 18). The closures themselves, however, did not rest on this workplace value but on § 175 of the Mineral Raw Materials Act ("imminent danger") and on the asbestos finding from official material samples taken in November 2025; according to Greenpeace, these samples were "commissioned by the authorities in the course of an EU directive" (5min.at, 2.1.2026; Greenpeace factsheet, 23.1.2026). The widespread account that it was the lowering of the limit that first made extraction impermissible and thereby triggered the closures therefore does not match the documented reason for closure.

The weekly newspaper Falter published a multi-page investigation into the 30-year backstory in its issue 13/2026 (24 March 2026, authors: Jürgen Klatzer and Matthias Winterer). Authorities, experts and operators had known about the asbestos problem since the 1990s; action was taken only now. Since January 2026, Greenpeace Austria has been documenting, in its own sampling campaign, where installed material from these quarries can be found. The finds now range from Burgenland and Lower Austria through Styria to Western Hungary, with a Hungarian focus in the Oladi-plató residential area in Szombathely.

The case has since widened: up to 30 Western Hungarian localities are affected according to the Mayor of Szombathely (Dr. András Nemény, Kontroll.hu interview early May 2026); a specific officially confirmed itemised list is pending. In Hungary a government decree on the clean-up was issued, Greenpeace calls on the Austrian federal government to set up a crisis task force. The Montanuniversität Leoben expert report on the four closed quarries was transmitted to the district administrative authorities on 8 May 2026; the results themselves are not public until the proceedings conclude.

The four closed quarries

According to Falter's investigations (Klatzer/Winterer, Falter 13/2026) and the official federal table (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026), the confirmed contaminated batches come from four quarries in southern Burgenland. All four extracted serpentinite from the geological context of the so-called Rechnitz Window.

• Pilgersdorf (Oberpullendorf district): one of the largest extraction sites in the region, encumbered since 2011 by an environmental impact assessment procedure against which the then operator filed an objection. Products: road grit, chippings, construction sand.
• Bernstein (Oberwart district): subject of an asbestos measurement by the ZFE Graz as early as 1994. Products: road grit, track ballast; locally the contents reach almost pure asbestos-fibre veins.
• Postmann (Oberwart district, cadastral municipality Glashütten bei Schlaining, postal "Rumpersdorf, 7463 Weiden bei Rechnitz"): in 2008 the 25-kilogram bag of road grit that the then federal minister had recalled by official order came from this quarry. Products: road grit, winter grit granulate. In the media the quarry is referred to partly as "Rumpersdorf", partly as "Glashütten bei Schlaining". The same site under mining law is meant.
• Badersdorf (Oberwart district): became publicly known in 2026 through a documented case along a private garden fence, where dust-tape measurements found 280 fibres per cm², against the threshold of 100 a reference value for acute need for action.

All four quarries were officially closed on 2 January 2026. Falter's investigation names the operator details in full; we limit ourselves to the publicly undisputed attribution and refer to the linked original source for names.

→ Report a find

The material from the four quarries was installed on a large scale over three decades. Falter speaks of roughly 50 million tonnes since 1990. The following list draws on finds by Greenpeace Austria, official confirmations, reports from ORF Burgenland, ORF Lower Austria, BVZ and Hungarian media (Telex, Index, vaol.hu, kormanyhivatalok.hu). It is updated continuously.

The toxicological relevance of asbestos-bearing gravel in public space can currently be assessed most precisely from the case of the Oladi-plató residential estate in Szombathely. While the Burgenland taskforce conducted its measurement series exclusively under wet, cold winter conditions (conditions that bind asbestos fibres to the ground), airborne-fibre measurements under dry conditions with real traffic loading are available from Hungary.

The case has since widened. In early May 2026, Mayor András Nemény stated in an interview with Kontroll.hu that, besides Szombathely, Sopron, Kőszeg and up to 30 further localities may be affected by the contaminated gravel, predominantly in Vas county, with further indications pointing to Zala county and the Székesfehérvár region.

Burgenland vs. Szombathely compared

Key mineralogical finding

"In some of the quarries the gravel comes from, a second geological process also took place in the rock, as a result of which fibrous minerals of the amphibole group also formed. That is clearly very problematic: a many-times-proven carcinogen. The cancer risk of amphibole asbestos is a hundred times higher than that of chrysotile. On top of that, this second geological process also weakened the rock mechanically. When it is laid out it looks apparently intact, but when cars drive over it, it crumbles much more easily."

Prof. Tamás Weiszburg, Telex interview, 27 April 2026

The Burgenland taskforce's raw data confirm the mineralogical picture at the airborne-fibre level: the asbestos fibres predominantly detected at the 66 measurement points were amphiboles (actinolite, tremolite), not chrysotile. At the level of quarry-specific mineralogy, the federal table (4055/AB-BR/2026) lists amphiboles for two of the four quarries (Postmann and Badersdorf, each chrysotile + amphibole); for Pilgersdorf and Bernstein, only chrysotile is listed.

What Szombathely means for Austria

"If the gravel intended as a road sub-base had been closed off with the next layers, no one would know about it today and it would not be a particular problem. No one knows how many tens or hundreds of kilometres of closed asphalt sub-base built in the western counties over the past one or two decades is still asbestos-bearing. These are not dangerous now, but when the road is broken open, for repairs for instance, asbestos investigations will become necessary for the workers' health."

Prof. Tamás Weiszburg, Telex interview, 27 April 2026

The same applies by analogy to Lower Austria, Styria and Burgenland. Every repair on a road with an asbestos-bearing sub-base becomes asbestos remediation within the meaning of § 26 GKV, a question of regulation and of knowledge that the federal government is not currently addressing systematically. In parallel with the worker-protection remediation duty (§ 26 GKV), the waste-law track applies: openly lying, health-endangering material can, under the objective concept of waste, already be waste and must be disposed of as hazardous waste from 0.1 percent (→ Competence and effect).

How dangerous is the asbestos gravel really?

The assessment of the health hazard posed by the installed serpentinite gravel is publicly contested, and the differences are not rhetorical, they are substantive.

What the provincial taskforce measured

The provincial taskforce, under the physicians Hans-Peter Hutter and Hanns Moshammer (Medical University of Vienna), published the complete first measurement series on 25 March 2026. At all 66 measurement points in Burgenland, the asbestos-fibre concentration stayed below the reference value of 1,000 fibres/m³ chosen by the taskforce itself. At 58 measurement points the value was below 400 fibres/m³, at eight locations between 540 and 830 fibres/m³, highest value 829 F/m³ (Dornburggasse Oberwart, 14 amphibole and 2 chrysotile fibres).

Three methodological limitations are decisive:

First: the reference value of 1,000 F/m³ is not laid down in law. A binding limit for asbestos fibres in ambient air exists neither in Austria nor at EU level. The taskforce chose this value itself. The value of 1,000 F/m³ does exist in the German Asbestos Directive of 1996, but there as the statistical upper bound (95% confidence interval) to the actual clearance value of 500 F/m³ after completed remediation, or as a protection value for third parties during active remediation work. Not as a value for the permanent exposure of the population in the general living environment.

Second: all measurements were taken under wet, cold winter conditions (wet ground, snow, high humidity). These conditions bind fibres to the ground. The taskforce itself notes, in its annotations to the measurement series, that a one-off measurement under these conditions is "not yet a sufficient basis for a medical assessment" and that a second measurement series is required in summer.

Third: the taskforce expressly notes in the annotations to its own data that "values above the expected background loading give cause for action under the precautionary principle of public-health protection". This self-assessment was, however, not communicated prominently in the high-profile reassurance message of "no cause for concern".

What Greenpeace and toxicology add

Greenpeace Austria and the environmental toxicologist Dr. Norbert Weis consider the winter measurement series unrepresentative. The dust-tape measurements on the ground already show clear contamination: about 280 fibres per square centimetre in Badersdorf against a threshold of 100/cm², 170 fibres per square centimetre in Kirchschlag. For respirable asbestos fibres, the linear no-threshold principle applies under the WHO and in EU asbestos regulation: there is no safe threshold; every additional fibre raises the risk statistically.

The medical facts neither side disputes

• Chrysotile (serpentine asbestos) and amphibole asbestos (actinolite, tremolite) are both classified as category 1 carcinogens (IARC).
• Amphibole asbestos is considered significantly more dangerous than chrysotile; the order of magnitude of the difference is often given as roughly a hundredfold, particularly for mesothelioma. The fibres predominantly detected in Burgenland are amphiboles.
• Asbestos-related diseases (lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis) have latency periods of 20 to 50 years. Anyone falling ill today was exposed in the 1980s or 1990s.
• The fibre shape makes asbestos dangerous: long, thin, biopersistent. Fibres are inhaled, remain in the lung and act there as a non-degradable foreign body.

Our assessment

The scientific data do not justify reassurance. The taskforce's winter measurements were taken under conditions that minimise fibre release. The Hungarian summer measurements on the same material show that under real conditions, values are reached that are many times the Austrian winter measurements and exceed the natural outdoor-air background by orders of magnitude. Combined with the mineralogical finding of amphibole asbestos, restraint in the use of sensitive areas (playgrounds, schools, kindergartens, hospitals) until clarification through summer measurements and assured remediation is the minimum standard, not the ceiling.

Dispersion modelling GeoSphere Austria (as of 31 May 2026)

The legal situation: rules, effect and liability

This section records which rules applied to asbestos naturally occurring in rock, what they prevented and what they did not, and which liability questions are currently open. Several legal logics stand side by side. We document them and attribute each to its source; we do not decide who is right or who is liable.

1. The asbestos ban and what it covers documented

Placing asbestos on the market is regulated in the EU via REACH (Annex XVII, entry 6) and via the CLP Regulation (asbestos = carcinogen 1A); the workplace via worker-protection law, extraction via the Mineral Raw Materials Act. These rules target asbestos intentionally added to products and occupational safety. What they do not have in view: asbestos that occurs naturally in the extracted rock. (the regulatory chain in detail on /en/asbestos-standards/)

2. Naturally occurring rock between the rules: product or raw material?

Unaltered natural minerals are exempt from registration under REACH Annex V; the general carcinogen restriction (entry 28) only prohibits supply to the general public and permits commercial supply. Gravel distributed as a natural raw material thus falls between the product rules. per Átlátszó / EUalive this is read as an exploited EU loophole (atlatszo.hu, 29.5.2026); a study by the group around Prof. Weiszburg documents that the EU system has so far barely captured naturally occurring asbestos (of 378 EU asbestos questions 1995–2024, only 13 with an NOA reference; Environmental Sciences Europe, 2025).

3. Competence and effect documented

Federal Minister Totschnig states in the written-question response 4055/AB-BR/2026 (12.5.2026) that there are "no gaps in the law". In the same text he describes the exemptions that the criticism takes issue with.

4. The GKV amendment 2025 and the January 2026 closures documented

On 31 December 2025, the GKV amendment (BGBl. II No. 339/2025, transposing EU Directive 2023/2668) lowered the workplace limit for asbestos fibres from 100,000 to 10,000 F/m³ (second step 2,000 F/m³ from 21.12.2029). The closures of the four quarries on 2 January 2026, however, rested on § 175 of the Mineral Raw Materials Act ("imminent danger") and the asbestos finding from official material samples taken in November 2025, not on the workplace value.

5. Who pays? The polluter-pays principle, liability and ongoing proceedings

• Hungary: per Telex/ORF at the meeting with Federal Chancellor Stocker on 21 May 2026 in Vienna, Prime Minister Magyar called the polluter-pays principle an internationally applicable rule and demanded compensation (on the order of "tens of billions of forint"); the polluter must pay, "whether company or state" (Telex / ORF, 21.5.2026).
• Austria: per ORF Federal Chancellor Stocker pointed to the domestic competence of the Province of Burgenland and the closures already carried out, pledged support to Hungary and left the question of liability or compensation open (ORF, 21.5.2026).
• Bilateral: documented a joint Austrian-Hungarian working group (work starting the following week) and a government meeting in Gödöllő in September 2026 (Telex, 21.5.2026).
• Government decree: documented 1134/2026 (IV.30.) orders an investigation of origin and liability "with particular attention to deliveries from Austria" and sets a cost accounting by 31 October 2026 (Magyar Közlöny 2026/42).
• Criminal: documented complaints by Mayor Nemény (against the operators, possibly the Austrian state), by the Hungarian environmental authority and by Greenpeace (Eisenstadt public prosecutor's office).
• Party-political: per Magyar Nemzet on 6.6.2026 the Fidesz MP Pócs János accused Magyar of demands that were too modest (a party-political sharpening).

6. What was known when open

The prior-knowledge record reaches far back: the Rechnitz study of 1979 (pleural plaques, 3,350 F/m³ in the open ambient air), distribution since the 1990s, the ministerial recall of a bag of road grit in 2008, the ÖSBS expert report of 1995; a 1999 ruling of the Administrative Court described the material of the Tauchental asphalt mixing plant as "asbestos-bearing". (to the background; to the backstory)

7. The current state of politics documented / open

• Austria: resolution motion 751/A(E) (Greens/Hammer, received 25.2.) postponed in the Environment Committee on 17.4. (ÖVP/SPÖ/NEOS); special session of the Burgenland provincial parliament 16.2. (resolution for a federally uniform regulation); federal working group on asbestos contamination (announced 21.5.: three federal ministries and the Labour Inspectorate, aim of federally uniform rules).
• Hungary: government decrees 1134/2026 and 1156/2026 (government-wide investigation orders); 1181/1182 (5.6., environmental authority and sanctions, asbestos not named explicitly, reproduced with that caveat); written question by Ágh Péter on financing the remediation (exists; the iromány number cannot be reconstructed because of the CAPTCHA block on parliament.hu).

On neither side has an asbestos-specific law been enacted; the regulatory questions remain politically open.

In full: the federal and parliamentary responses (4053/4055)

Two statements by Hans-Peter Hutter in Falter, cross-checked against the record (26 May 2026)

In Falter (issue 22/2026), taskforce head Hans-Peter Hutter doubted the origin of the gravel and the Hungarian measured values. Both statements are incompatible with the publicly documented record.

• The laboratory: the high Szombathely values (up to 292,000 fibres/m³) were, according to Greenpeace, determined "with the involvement of the same laboratory that is also active for the Province of Burgenland", that is, by the Vienna firm ESW Consulting WRUSS (ORF, 2 February 2026). The lower Austrian values come from fibre-suppressing winter and damp conditions (830 fibres/m³ on wet ground, Salzburger Nachrichten, 5 March 2026).
• The origin: the NAV freight data (EKÁER) document deliveries from the four quarries to around 250 Hungarian municipalities; they had been public since 23 May 2026. Hutter's "not clarified" is dated 26 May 2026.

Detailed analysis with all sources: → Fact-check: the Falter statements by Hans-Peter Hutter

Taskforce Asbestos Burgenland: does the province recommend self-disposal of asbestos material?

On 15 April 2026, ORF Burgenland reported on a find in Ollersdorf. In the same report, the provincial taskforce was quoted with the following recommendation:

"Municipalities and private individuals should remove proven asbestos or suspect material using water and dispose of it properly."

On the question of where it goes, the taskforce said the original seller, for instance a quarry, was responsible for a return or complaint.

Why this recommendation is problematic

With the amendment to the Austrian Limit Values Ordinance 2025 (BGBl. II 339/2025), the legislator decided that demolition or asbestos-remediation work may be carried out only by employers authorised under § 26 GKV and entered on an official list of the federal ministry. The prerequisites are proven protective measures, extraction or sedimentation of the fibres, decontamination procedures, closed containers for waste, and theoretical and practical instruction under § 25a GKV.

Private individuals are by definition not authorised and cannot be authorised. If the taskforce recommends that they carry out, on their own, exactly those activities that the legislator has reserved for certified specialist firms, that stands in clear tension with the GKV.

Added to this are the requirements for transport and disposal: asbestos-bearing waste is hazardous waste under the Waste Catalogue Ordinance. Handover is permitted only to a collector authorised under § 24a AWG 2002, and transport requires closed packaging with asbestos labelling under § 22a para. 2 no. 3 GKV (a prerequisite for the exemption under SV 168 ADR). Private individuals typically have neither such containers nor contacts to authorised collectors.

On the taskforce's website at burgenland.at/themen/gesundheit/taskforce-vorsorgeabklaerung-luftqualitaet there are more detailed recommendations on protective equipment, which were not, however, reflected in the ORF report. The discrepancy between internal recommendation and public risk communication is the subject of our open letters.

First letter to Prof. Hutter (15 April 2026, private)

Because we receive daily calls from people who want to act on the basis of this recommendation, on 15 April 2026 we sent a formal letter to OA Assoz.-Prof. Priv.-Doz. DI Dr. med. Hans-Peter Hutter, head of the provincial taskforce and specialist in environmental medicine at the Medical University of Vienna.

We ask specifically: on what legal and safety basis does the recommendation for self-removal rest? And: is a clarification planned?

Open letter to Prof. Hutter (26 April 2026)

No reply to the private first letter of 15 April has yet been received. In the meantime, additional points have arisen, in particular the tension with § 26 GKV, the reference value of 1,000 fibres/m³ chosen by the taskforce itself, and the absence of immediate measures at known locations. We follow up with an open letter. The reply will be published here in full and unchanged as soon as it arrives.

Both replies, insofar as they arrive, we document here in full and unchanged. If they fail to come, we note that too.

Open letter to Prof. Kirschbaum (26 April 2026)

In the ARGE Naturgestein OTS releases, several statements are attributed to Prof. Kirschbaum that call for technical follow-up questions. On 26 April 2026 we sent an open letter. The reply will be published here in full as soon as it arrives.

Welche Norm für was: occupational vs public exposure (as of 24 May 2026)

What the taskforce uses

• Reference value 1,000 fibres/m³ for the ambient air in Großpetersdorf. This value is set by the taskforce itself and is not laid down in law. The reference point, according to the taskforce, is a factor of 1/10 of the German workplace acceptance concentration under TRGS 910 (10,000 F/m³ for 8-hour shift exposure). Source: burgenland.at, taskforce FAQ.
• Material analysis by the Montanuniversität Leoben is, according to the publicly available press release of the Province of Burgenland of 8 May 2026, carried out applying TRGS 517 (fibre counting per annex 2). Source: burgenland.at, media service 8.5.2026.
• Common reference basis: all three quantities, that is, the reference value, TRGS 910 and TRGS 517, are developed from occupational-safety law for activity-related exposures. They were designed for the question: how much asbestos gets into the air of a worker during an 8-hour occupational shift in a processing plant?

What does not exist

In Austria there is no statutory limit for asbestos fibres in ambient air. Consistent with this, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management (BMLUK), in the parliamentary written-question response 4055/AB-BR/2026, states among other things that for such a regulation "international models" are "not known". In Germany the legal situation is comparable: the TRGS series is occupational-safety law. REACH Annex XVII entry 6 prohibits the placing on the market of asbestos fibres and intentionally asbestos-added mixtures in the EU. However: extracted mineral raw materials of natural origin are exempt from registration under REACH Annex V provided they are not chemically altered (source: BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026). The applicability to naturally occurring asbestos in rock is the subject of an ongoing EU discussion. Ambient concentrations and the handling of already installed material in gravel roads are not regulated by REACH (details in the cross-check of the taskforce Q&A).

How California solved this

California faces a geologically comparable situation (serpentinite with naturally occurring asbestos, among others in the Sierra Nevada foothills) and has a binding standard for it: the CARB ATCM Surfacing Applications (17 CCR § 93106) for serpentine-bearing material in unpaved surfaces, threshold below 0.25% asbestos mass content (since 2001, previously 5%). The decisive thing is the choice of method: CARB Method 435 pulverises the sample before evaluation and thus represents the state after mechanical loading, while the TRGS 517 (annex 2) used in Burgenland is tailored to the processing activity. Which question an assessment of the multi-year resident exposure is meant to answer thus remains open. For railway ballast, Italy operates a comparable material limit (0.1%). The full description of methods and thresholds with primary sources (CARB Method 435, TRGS 517, Cavallo 2020) is on our reference page: CARB Method 435 and methodological note.

What the methodology means in the concrete case: worked examples with data from the Rechnitz Window

Worked example A: seven product samples

Mineralogical observation. Worked example A shows a mixed chrysotile-amphibole finding with a dominance of amphibole (tremolite/actinolite) in most grain sizes. Notably: in sample B (0/2) the dust contains 27.9% amphibole but only 4.7% chrysotile. In the same grain size (sample A) the ratio does not reverse, but chrysotile dominates (22.3 vs. 6.9%). This shows the heterogeneity even within the same product type. Samples A and B are two different products of the same grain size 0/2. All samples above the threshold (4-fold to 36-fold).

What the table shows

1. One data set, seven products, ninefold range. The calculated asbestos mass contents range between 0.4 and 3.6 percent (factor 9). All seven samples come from the same model site. The variation is primarily methodological, not geological. The coarser the grain size, the less dust the dusting test releases, the lower the result. Even two samples of the same grain size (A and B, both 0/2) give different values (1.7 vs 3.6%), which shows the scatter of the method for dust-intensive fractions.

2. The implicit assumption. The extrapolation [asbestos in dust] × [dust share] = [total asbestos] gives arithmetically the same result as the assumption that the fraction above 100 µm contains 0.0% asbestos. That is geologically untenable: chrysotile veins and amphibole crystals run through the rock across a wide grain-size range (see methodological note). When a vehicle drives on a gravel road for years, it also crushes the coarse fractions, which then release the same high asbestos share.

3. All values above the threshold. Despite the methodological reduction, every single sample exceeds the 0.1% threshold. The authorities chose TRGS 517 as the procedure; TRGS 517 specifies the 0.1% threshold from § 11 (1) No. 1 GefStoffV. Whoever chooses the procedure implicitly applies the yardstick it specifies, as long as no alternative threshold is defined. Every sample is above it, the lowest fourfold (sample E, 0.4%), the highest thirty-sixfold (sample B, 3.6%). A method that systematically produces lower numerical values than a total analysis of the material cannot calculate that material below its own threshold.

Summary across three worked examples

18 samples from three worked examples in the same geological complex. Every single sample is above the 0.1% threshold. The range goes from 0.2% (factor 2) to 3.6% (factor 36). The three model sites differ mineralogically: worked example A shows a mixed chrysotile-amphibole finding with amphibole dominance, worked example B an approximately equal one, worked example C an almost pure chrysotile finding. This variation is relevant to health, because the cancer risk of amphibole asbestos is, according to the epidemiological data, higher than that of chrysotile (among others Hodgson and Darnton 2000 for amosite and crocidolite; for tremolite and actinolite the data are thinner, but the direction of the finding is consistent).

Methodology critique: what the Großpetersdorf measurements really show, and what they do not (as of 26 May 2026)

With a release of the Province of Burgenland of Friday, 22 May 2026, the provincial taskforce published three measured values for Großpetersdorf (ORF Burgenland, 22 May 2026). The value of roughly 13,000 fibres/m³ is thereby officially confirmed as actually measured on site. The taskforce's methodological framing ("worst-case measurement under extreme conditions") deserves its own sober reading. We provide that here.

Chronology

• 10 February 2026: first measurement, 95 fibres/m³ in damp weather (winter measurement).
• 7 May 2026: second measurement, roughly 13,000 fibres/m³. The taskforce frames this value retrospectively as a "worst-case measurement under extreme conditions". The point at which the result was internally available to or communicated by the taskforce is not publicly documented.
• 16 May 2026: the market town of Großpetersdorf reports, via an information sheet, elevated asbestos values in air measurements in the Mühlschlag area; ORF Burgenland reports the same day (burgenland.orf.at/stories/3354408). A specific figure is not yet contained in the municipal notice at this point.
• 19 May 2026 (Tuesday): third measurement, 300 fibres/m³ under "real conditions".
• 22 May 2026 (Friday): release of the Province of Burgenland with all three values; ORF Burgenland report the same day, 17:51 local time (burgenland.orf.at/stories/3355418). The highest value is framed as "worst case under extreme conditions", the two low ones as representative.

Methodological degrees of freedom

1. When measurement is taken: February damp versus May. Wet, cold winter conditions empirically reduce fibre release considerably (the taskforce itself named this as a limitation of the winter series in its earlier FAQ releases). The 10.2. measurement was taken under conditions where a low value is to be expected in principle.
2. Which conditions are "real" and which "extreme": the taskforce defines both categories itself, without a measurement protocol published in advance. Dry May days with traffic are not unusual in Großpetersdorf.
3. N = 3: three reference days over three months, one sampling point. Too few for a statistically robust characterisation of resident exposure.
4. Timing of the 19.5. measurement: the third measurement was taken three days before the province's release (19.5. → 22.5.) and three days after the municipal report (16.5. → 19.5.). Which considerations triggered the additional measurement is not publicly documented.
5. Who reviews: taskforce-internal measurement, taskforce-internal selection of conditions, taskforce-internal framing of the results. No independent replication publicly documented.
6. Evaluation frame of its own reference: the taskforce chose the acceptance concentration of TRGS 910 (10,000 F/m³) as a reference quantity and derived its reference value (1,000 F/m³) as one tenth of it. TRGS 517 annex 3 governs how compliance with this acceptance concentration is to be demonstrated: at least three measurements on different days, all individual values below half the acceptance concentration (5,000 F/m³); if a single measured value exceeds the acceptance concentration of 10,000 F/m³, "compliance below the value of 10,000 F/m³ cannot be established" (TRGS 517 annex 3, paragraph 5). The measured value of 7 May (roughly 13,000 F/m³) exceeds the acceptance concentration. By the evaluation scheme of the same TRGS from which the taskforce derives its reference value, this measurement series would not have passed. The taskforce does not apply this evaluation scheme.

What the data show

Three measurements, roughly a 137-fold range (95 to 13,000), peak value 13-fold above the taskforce's own reference value of 1,000 fibres/m³. The 13,000 value is a measurement actually carried out, not an artefact. The label "worst case under extreme conditions" is a form of words, not a methodological fact, as long as the measurement protocol for this measurement is not publicly available. Another honest reading of the same data: under at least one condition that actually occurred on site, the asbestos-fibre concentration is 13-fold above the self-set reference value.

Specific demands

1. A full measurement protocol per measurement day: sampling point, measurement duration, pump rate, air volume, fibre-counting standard, weather data (temperature, humidity, wind direction and strength), traffic volume, any mechanical action.
2. Criteria by which 7 May was classified as "extreme" and 19 May as "real".
3. A statistically robust measurement series with N ≥ 10 over distributed summer days under realistic resident conditions, including the distribution of the individual values.
4. Replication of the protocol by a body independent of the taskforce.

Whether you might be affected depends not primarily on where you live but on the origin of your gravel, road grit or chippings. The following questions help with a first assessment.

1. Region and supply route

Was material obtained from southern Burgenland in roughly the last 35 years? This obviously concerns municipalities and private individuals in Burgenland, Lower Austria and Styria, but, because of the long distribution chains, also recipients beyond that. Ask the municipality, building contractor, home supplier or, for older deliveries, the purchase contract for the origin and delivery year.

2. Period and use

Material from these quarries was sold widely from 1990, with peaks in the 2000s and 2010s. Typical uses: driveways, garden paths, winter grit granulate, track ballast, playgrounds, school routes, car parks, landscaping areas.

3. Visual cues

Serpentinite is often greenish or green-whitish speckled, sometimes with a silky sheen. Fresh fracture surfaces can look fibrous and splintery. Important: visual identification is not reliable. Harmless, asbestos-free serpentinite also exists, and it can hardly be reliably distinguished by eye from other dark-green rocks such as gabbro or basalt. The eye alone is not enough; for a robust statement a laboratory measurement is needed.

4. Location and exposure

The more sensitive the use (children, school, hospital) and the stronger the mechanical loading (traffic, wind, dryness), the more urgent the clarification. A rarely used garden path that can be covered over if needed is not the same as a daycare playground.

5. Rock flour and milled garden products

The contamination does not affect only loose gravel. Our own DAkkS-accredited laboratory analysis (May 2026) detected tremolite asbestos (amphibole, mass class 3, 5 to 20%) in the soil conditioner TerraDiabas® rock flour, a garden product advertised as "100% organic", milled from the diabase of the Burg quarry and distributed at retail. Anyone who has bought such a rock flour from the southern-Burgenland area should not spread it, not let it dust dry, and keep the packaging together with the batch details. Details and test report: Finding 3.

For official inquiries about the closed quarries and the ongoing proceedings, the responsible authorities are the district authorities (Bezirkshauptmannschaften) of Oberwart and Oberpullendorf; they ordered the closures under § 175 of the Mineral Raw Materials Act.

What is serpentinite, and why does it contain asbestos?

Serpentinite is a metamorphic rock derived from former upper-mantle material that reacted with water over geological periods. Among the minerals that form is chrysotile, the fibrous habit known industrially as "white asbestos". How much asbestos an occurrence contains varies widely: samples from the same quarry can yield 5 percent in one measurement and 50 percent in the next, depending on how hydration and later tectonic loading proceeded. Amphibole asbestos such as actinolite and tremolite forms secondarily in contact zones and is even more localised.

A direct mineralogical confirmation comes from the geologist Friedrich Koller of the University of Vienna, to Falter: "Asbestos forms in the fractures. In some quarries, such as Badersdorf, asbestos veins are more frequent than in other serpentinite quarries." One cannot "tar all serpentinite occurrences with the same brush" (Klatzer/Winterer, Falter 13/2026).

The geology in detail: how mantle rock becomes serpentinite, which serpentine minerals form, why the Rechnitz Window in particular is affected, and how amphibole asbestos forms secondarily, is explained at length in the blog: → Serpentinite, asbestos and the geology of the Rechnitz Window.

• Greenpeace Austria, ongoing sampling campaign; spot samples in several provinces (see sources below).
• Falter, investigation series 13/2026 (24 March 2026, Klatzer/Winterer); multi-part coverage of the 30-year backstory.
• ORF Burgenland, ongoing coverage since January 2026 (closure, Ollersdorf, Pilgersdorf drill, taskforce recommendations).
• vaol.hu / Telex / Index.hu, Hungarian coverage of Szombathely, Sopron, Kőszeg, Zalaegerszeg (see sources).

All sources & evidence

52 sources, grouped by category. Click a category to expand.

For questions about the sources, specific measurement results or the assessment of individual reports: servus@ungiftig.at