Asbestos Gravel in Burgenland: Facts, Finds and Open Questions
Four officially closed quarries, a fifth operating quarry with up to 50 % asbestos (own DAkkS analysis), a sixth with pending laboratory results (Rechnitz). Roughly 50 million tonnes of extracted material since 1990, finds from Lower Austria through Styria to Western Hungary, where, according to Hungarian authorities and press, at least 300 sites in three counties (Vas, Zala, Győr-Moson-Sopron) are now documented. This page documents the publicly established facts, supplemented by two of our own DAkkS-accredited laboratory analyses from May 2026, and places the findings in scientific context.
Last update: , new section: analysis of the GeoSphere Austria dispersal model (GRAMM/GRAL, 131 pages, commissioned by the state government). Methodological assessment of the TRGS 517 dilution effect in the input parameter.
By Dr. Maximilian Mandl (Geochemist, Dr. Sc. ETH Zürich) — Ungiftig FlexCo
All sources ↓
TL;DR. Four quarries in southern Burgenland have been officially closed since January 2026 due to asbestos contamination of 2 to 100 percent (quarry-specific, BMLUK table 4055/AB-BR/2026). Material from these quarries was used over three decades in Burgenland, Lower Austria, Styria and Western Hungary.
Status of the quarries (six in the Rechnitz window)
Pilgersdorf
closed; trial operation requested Zöchling (Esterházy Private Foundation Lockenhaus, according to Falter investigation 13/2026 of 24.3.2026) since 2 January 2026
Bernstein
closed; trial operation requested Hermann Mayer Ges.m.b.H. (declined to comment on Falter inquiry 13/2026) since 2 January 2026
Postmann (Rumpersdorf / KG Glashütten bei Schlaining)
closed; trial operation requested Klöcher Baugesellschaft m.b.H. (declined to comment on Falter inquiry 13/2026) Oberwart district since 2 January 2026
Badersdorf
closed; trial operation requested Klöcher Baugesellschaft m.b.H. (declined to comment on Falter inquiry 13/2026) since 2 January 2026
Burg
operating Own sampling May 2026, laboratory analysis pending Oberwart district
Rechnitz
operating Own sampling May 2026, laboratory analysis pending Oberwart district · Historical precedent 1979
As of 31 May 2026. The Montanuniversität Leoben expert opinion has been with the authorities since 8 May 2026; the official decision on resumption of operation is pending.
Mini-timeline
1979BOKU study measures 3,350 asbestos fibres/m³ in the outdoor air of Rechnitz; 10 % of the population with pleural plaques
1990 onwardsAsbestos issue known within the industry, not enforced by authorities
31 Dec 2025Entry into force of the GKV-Novelle 2025 (BGBl. II 339/2025): workplace limit lowered from 100,000 to 10,000 F/m³
2 January 2026Official closure of the four quarries
13 January 2026First federal information (BMASGPK) — by phone from the Office of the Burgenland State Government (4053/AB-BR/2026, Q1a)
14 February 2026State Task Force publicly demands that the federal government close the asbestos regulatory gap (Land Burgenland / ORF Burgenland, 14.2.2026)
16 February 2026First special session of the Landtag on asbestos on ÖVP motion (Rose Monday); majority motion calls for a uniform Austria-wide regulation (ORF Burgenland, BVZ, 16.2.2026)
24 March 2026Falter investigation „Das verseuchte Bundesland" (Klatzer / Winterer)
April 2026Public-health emergency declared in Szombathely (Hungary)
15/26 April 2026Private letter and open letter to Prof. Hans-Peter Hutter (head of the State Task Force); response pending
23 April 2026Regular Landtag session; Deputy Governor Haider-Wallner argues during the questions hour that the Hungarian situation (heavily trafficked HGV road in a residential area) does not exist in Burgenland (ORF Burgenland, 23.4.2026)
27 April 2026ARGE press conference inside the closed Pilgersdorf quarry
4 May 2026Own laboratory analysis by Ungiftig FlexCo (CRB report 26-06249)
5 May 2026Early-May Hungary escalation estimate: Mayor Nemény names up to 30 affected municipalities (early-May framing)
8 May 2026Montanuniversität Leoben expert opinion received by authorities
9 May 2026Péter Magyar (Tisza party) elected Hungarian Prime Minister with 140:54 votes; László Gajdos appointed Minister for the Living Environment (Portfolio, 9.5.2026)
11/12 May 2026Parliamentary answers Schumann (BMASGPK, 4053/AB-BR/2026) and Totschnig (BMLUK, 4055/AB-BR/2026)
11–13 May 2026Bitumen sealing of Síp utca on the Oladi-Plató (Szombathely); calcium-chloride dust binding on ~20,000 m² across 7 streets in parallel (Ugytudjuk, Economx, Infostart, 11.–12.5.2026)
13 May 2026Greenpeace wave: seven further asbestos-bearing gravel sites in Burgenland (Stadtschlaining, Holzschlag/KG Mariasdorf, Deutschkreutz, Horitschon, Steinberg-Dörfl, Kaisersdorf, Neumarkt im Tauchental) plus Aspangberg-St. Peter in Lower Austria; demand to convert the closed quarries into asbestos disposal sites
14 May 2026László Gajdos as new Hungarian Minister for the Living Environment makes Szombathely his first field visit; announces cabinet briefing for 18 May (Pénzcentrum, 14.5.; Euronews, 15.5.2026)
15 May 2026At least 300 documented sites across three Hungarian counties (Vas, Zala, Győr-Moson-Sopron); Sopron confirmed with 19 road segments testing positive; Kőszeg and Zalaegerszeg as further affected cities (Euronews 15.5.; Pénzcentrum 14.–15.5.; Telex 16.5.2026)
21 May 2026Task Force publishes three Großpetersdorf measurement values (95, 13,000, 300 fibres/m³)
23 May 2026Methodological analysis of the Großpetersdorf values and demand for protocol + N ≥ 10 follow-up measurements on this page (→ methodology critique)
24 May 2026Factual standards reference, new section "workplace vs. ambient exposure", methodological context for the TRGS-517 method with peer-reviewed source anchor (→ section, → methodological context)
21 Dec 2029 (planned)Planned second-stage reduction of the workplace asbestos limit to 2,000 F/m³ (EU Directive 2023/2668; 4053/AB-BR/2026, Q18)
31 May 2026: The interactive find-location map is now embedded directly in this overview; the full list of all documented locations remains available as a collapsible text list. You can still report your own finds via the find-location page.
27 May 2026: New section: analysis of the GeoSphere Austria dispersal model (GRAMM/GRAL, 131 pages, commissioned by the Office of the Burgenland State Government, ref. 2026/UM/000160). Result table of WHO fibre concentrations at residential receptor points (annual mean and P95 for all four quarries). Methodological assessment: TRGS 517 dilution effect in the input parameter (with back-reference to the worked examples), missing sensitivity analysis, missing deposition/accumulation/resuspension. (→ dispersal model)
26 May 2026: Großpetersdorf methodology critique expanded: new point 6 "Evaluation framework of the chosen reference" shows that the three Task Force measurements would be classified as non-compliant under the TRGS 517 Annex 3 evaluation scheme (from which the Task Force derives its reference value), because a single reading exceeds the acceptance concentration. Worked example expanded with model calculations from the Rechnitz window (18 samples, CSV download). (→ methodology critique) (→ worked example)
24 May 2026 (Phase 3): Substantive expansion of the standards reference on /en/asbestos-standards/: local mirror of EPA CTM-029 (CARB-Method-435 mirror) at /asbest-normen/sources/, deepening of the VDI 3866 and VDI 3492 articles (method selection, equipment parameters, detection-limit scaling), new "Methodological context" section with peer-reviewed source anchor (Cavallo 2020, USGS OFR 2011-1188, IARC Monograph 100C). On this Burgenland page: new Cavallo cross-reference in the "Which standard for what" section. Also: layout fix on the standards section headers, removal of Weiterführend and Videos sections on /asbest-erkennen/, updated banner date on the homepage. (→ standards section, → methodological context)
24 May 2026: New section "Which standard for what: workplace versus ambient exposure" between the Task Force fact-check block and the Großpetersdorf methodology critique. Factual placement of the reference values used by the Task Force (TRGS 910 acceptance concentration of 10,000 F/m³, orientation value of 1,000 F/m³, TRGS 517 material analysis) against the absent Austrian/German standard for resident ambient air, and in comparison with California's ATCM Surfacing Applications (17 CCR § 93106) / CARB Method 435. Published in parallel: a factual reference page covering all relevant standards at /en/asbestos-standards/. (→ to the new section)
23 May 2026: Methodology critique of the Task Force's 21.5.2026 Großpetersdorf publication. Three officially confirmed measurement values (95, 13,000, 300 fibres/m³) presented in a table; chronology, methodological degrees of freedom and concrete protocol demands round out the analysis. The previously staged open letter is obsolete because the Task Force published before the deadline; the analytical section replaces it. The four primary-source factual sharpenings in the 100-years-of-backstory section (Rosenberg 1928, Mikro-Asbest marketing, 1916–1945 attribution, Rosenberg citation) remain unchanged. (→ to the methodology critique)
18 May 2026: Multiple fact additions from primary sources — the Marktgemeinde Großpetersdorf information sheet on the Mühlschlag finding is now fully documented (milled-asphalt material applied in 2018, approximately 1.2 km of road, planned asphalt overlay ~€130,000; source: ORF Burgenland 16.5.2026) and available as a PDF on this page; the operator attribution for the four closed quarries has been sharpened (Klöcher Baugesellschaft m.b.H. for Rumpersdorf and Badersdorf, Hermann Mayer Ges.m.b.H. for Bernstein, both declining Falter's request for comment); additional independent expert voice on the regional geology (Friedrich Koller, geologist University of Vienna, on asbestos veins in Badersdorf); historical context figures added (industrial asbestos mining 1916–1945; approximately 870,000 t of asbestos in use in Austria 1947–1990, Umweltbundesamt; approximately 100 cases/year of asbestos-related occupational diseases per the accident-insurance scheme); verbatim BMLUK answers to questions 13/17/19/20 from 4055/AB-BR/2026 (informing the public delegated to the provinces, international precedents "not known", research "sufficiently investigated", disposal under waste law); BMASGPK supplementary answer to question 7b from 4053/AB-BR/2026 (no §45a-AMFG layoff filings from the affected operators); historical map from the 1941 Burgenland Atlas (map 3 — Rechnitz asbestos production 1926–1936 and asbestos exports 1931–1936) embedded as image (source: David Rumsey Map Collection, license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0); supply-chain section expanded with three Styrian companies (McDonald's, Hofer, Sandstein Bau- und Gartenmaterial).
16 May 2026: Major update — Hungary escalation wave fully integrated: change of government (Magyar Péter / Gajdos), bitumen sealing of Síp utca (11–13 May), at least 300 documented sites across three counties (Vas, Zala, Győr-Moson-Sopron), Sopron as third affected city with 19 streets testing positive. Greenpeace wave of 13 May 2026 integrated with seven new Burgenland municipalities plus Aspangberg-St. Peter in Lower Austria. Statement of Pilgersdorf operations manager Eichhorn (ORF Burgenland 9 May 2026) and status of the pending Hutter response added. Mini-timeline extended with special Landtag, Hutter letters, and government escalation. Layout update: info-box roles normalised, in-section mini-TOCs in the Findings and Hungary deep-dive sections. (→ Hungary deep-dive) (→ Findings)
11 May 2026: Major update — incorporation of the Montanuniversität Leoben expert opinion (as of 8 May 2026), expansion of the Hungary in-depth analysis to up to 30 municipalities, Hungarian government decree and Greenpeace demand for an Austrian crisis unit. New section on the historical Rechnitz 1979 study (3,350 F/m³ in the open ambient air of a residential area — 47 years before today's findings). (→ Montanuni) (→ Rechnitz)
5 May 2026: Own sampling — Ungiftig FlexCo had two of its own samples analysed by the DAkkS-accredited CRB Analyse Service GmbH laboratory. Finding 1: gravel on a children's playground path in Kotezicken (actinolite, class 2). Finding 2: active loading ramp of a not-currently-closed quarry in the same geological complex as the closed quarries (southern Burgenland Rechnitzer Window; location anonymised for legal reasons) — chrysotile, class 4 (20 to 50 per cent asbestos by mass); official verification pending. (→ to the sampling)
4 May 2026: In-depth Hungary analysis updated — outdoor air measurements from Szombathely (Oladi-plató), criminal complaint by Mayor Nemény, expertise from Prof. Tamás Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest) on the mineralogical finding of amphibole asbestos. (→ to the in-depth Hungary analysis)
4 May 2026: New Austrian finding sites — boccia court in Kirchschlag (Buckligen Welt) with up to 20 per cent asbestos content, playground in Ollersdorf closed. (→ to the finding sites)
4 May 2026: Scientific contextualisation of the ARGE press conference of 27 April 2026 in the officially closed Pilgersdorf quarry. (→ to the fact-check)
4 May 2026: Fact-check on the Q&A page of the state task force — discrepancy between the public reassurance message and the task force's own methodological caveats. (→ to the task-force fact-check)
26 April 2026: Open letter to Prof. Hutter (task-force lead, MedUni Vienna) — four questions on § 26 GKV, practical disposal, the full chain, and the 1,000 fibres/m³ guideline. (→ jump to letter)
26 April 2026: Open letter to Prof. Kirschbaum (KiProCon, ARGE expert) — four questions on the threshold of mechanical wear, outdoor air measurements under real conditions, methodology critique, and laboratory certification. (→ jump to letter)
26 April 2026: Full first task-force measurement series (66 points, March 2026) integrated, with methodological context. (→ to the measurement series)
What happened?
On 2 January 2026, four quarries in southern Burgenland — Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Postmann (postally Rumpersdorf, KG Glashütten bei Schlaining) and Badersdorf — were closed by Austrian authorities. The reason: analyses found quarry-specific asbestos contents of 2 to 100 per cent in the extracted serpentinite. The legal threshold for placing asbestos-containing materials on the market is 0.1 per cent.
Asbestos content per quarry according to the official federal table (BMLUK, 4055/AB-BR/2026 of 12.5.2026, p. 2)
Quarry
Cadastral municipality
District
Asbestos group
Content
Pilgersdorf
Pilgersdorf
Oberpullendorf
Chrysotile
5–50 %
Bernstein
Bernstein
Oberwart
Chrysotile
5–100 %
Postmann (postally Rumpersdorf)
Glashütten bei Schlaining
Oberwart
Chrysotile + amphibole
10–70 %
Badersdorf
Badersdorf
Oberwart
Chrysotile + amphibole
2–70 %
The trigger was a regulatory step at the turn of the year: on 31 December 2025, the GKV-Novelle 2025 (BGBl. II Nr. 339/2025, transposition of EU Directive 2023/2668) entered into force and lowered Austria's occupational exposure limit for airborne asbestos fibres from 100,000 to 10,000 fibres per cubic metre of air. The rock had not changed — the law had. Under the new, stricter limit, extraction at the affected quarries was no longer permissible. With 21 December 2029, the limit will be lowered further to 2,000 F/m³ in a second stage (Schumann, 4053/AB-BR/2026, Q18).
The Austrian investigative weekly Falter published a multi-page investigation into the 30-year backstory in issue 13/2026 (24 March 2026, reporters Jürgen Klatzer and Matthias Winterer). Authorities, expert witnesses and quarry operators had known about the asbestos problem in this region since the 1990s — action only came now. Since January 2026, Greenpeace Austria has additionally been running its own sampling campaign, documenting where material from these quarries ended up. Finds now reach from Burgenland and Lower Austria across Styria into western Hungary, with a Hungarian focus on the Oladi-plató residential area in Szombathely.
Meanwhile, the case has expanded: according to the Mayor of Szombathely (Dr. András Nemény, Kontroll.hu interview, early May 2026), up to 30 Western Hungarian municipalities may be affected — a specific, officially confirmed itemised list is still pending. The Hungarian government has issued a decree mandating clarification; Greenpeace is calling on the Austrian federal government to establish a crisis unit. The Montanuniversität Leoben expert opinion on the four closed quarries was transmitted to the district administrative authorities on 8 May 2026; the results themselves are not public pending conclusion of the proceedings.
The four closed quarries
According to the Falter investigation (Klatzer/Winterer, Falter 13/2026) and the official federal table (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026), the confirmed contaminated batches originate from four quarries in southern Burgenland. All four extracted serpentinite from the geological context of the so-called Rechnitzer Fenster.
Pilgersdorf (Oberpullendorf district): one of the largest extraction sites in the region, subject to an environmental impact assessment (UVP) procedure since 2011, contested by the then-operator. Products: chippings, rolled aggregate, construction sand. Asbestos group chrysotile, content range 5–50 % (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026, p. 2).
Bernstein (Oberwart district): already the subject of an asbestos measurement by the ZFE Graz research institute in 1994. Products: chippings, railway ballast. Asbestos group chrysotile, content range 5–100 % (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026, p. 2), i.e. up to pure asbestos-fibre veins.
Postmann (Oberwart district, cadastral municipality Glashütten bei Schlaining, postally „Rumpersdorf, 7463 Weiden bei Rechnitz"): in 2008, the then-federal minister issued a product recall for 25-kilogram bags of winter road grit from this quarry. Products: chippings, winter road grit. Asbestos group chrysotile and amphibole, content range 10–70 % (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026, p. 2). The quarry is sometimes referred to as "Rumpersdorf" and sometimes as "Glashütten bei Schlaining" in the media. Both refer to the same mining-law location.
Badersdorf (Oberwart district): became publicly known in 2026 through a documented case along a private garden fence where dust-tape measurements showed 280 fibres per cm², well above the 100/cm² threshold typically used as an indicator of acute concern. Asbestos group chrysotile and amphibole, content range 2–70 % (BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026, p. 2).
All four quarries were closed by order of the authorities on 2 January 2026. Operator names are detailed in the Falter reporting; we limit ourselves to the publicly undisputed attribution and refer to the linked original source for further details.
TL;DR. Asbestos-contaminated material from the four closed quarries has been documented in at least 37 locations in Burgenland, Styria, Lower Austria and Vienna. The list grows continuously; reported finds are added with source citations.
Material from the four quarries was distributed on a massive scale over three decades. Falter puts the total at roughly 50 million tonnes since 1990. The following list draws on Greenpeace Austria finds, official confirmations, reporting by ORF Burgenland, ORF Niederösterreich, BVZ, and Hungarian outlets (Telex, Index, vaol.hu, kormanyhivatalok.hu). It is continuously updated.
Show all documented locations as a text list
Location
Coordinates
Source
Status
Austria
Breitenbrunn am Neusiedler See (ÖBB station)Eisenstadt-Umgebung
Industrial site, Wiener NeustadtWiener Neustadt (Stadt)
—
Greenpeace
Remediated
Wiener NeustadtWiener Neustadt (Stadt)
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
Hungary
Harka (5 streets)Győr-Moson-Sopron
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
SopronGyőr-Moson-Sopron
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
Sopron, Egeredi-dombGyőr-Moson-Sopron
47.6636, 16.5922
Greenpeace
Lab-confirmed
Sopron, Pozsonyi út car parkGyőr-Moson-Sopron
47.6933, 16.6016
Greenpeace
Lab-confirmed
BozsokVas
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
KőszegVas
—
Media
Unconfirmed
Szentgotthárd, Hársas-tó lakeside promenadeVas
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
Szombathely, Oladi-platóVas
—
Media
Lab-confirmed
ZalaegerszegZala
46.8417, 16.8416
Media
Unconfirmed
This list is not exhaustive. If you know of a case we should include, please write to servus@ungiftig.at — we verify and add with a source citation.
What do the supply chains say?
A private citizen-research effort from Styria contacted around 15 quarry and wholesale operations from February to May 2026 and documented their responses. The result: the Styrian supply chains queried do not as a rule source material from the four closed Burgenland quarries — outside the individual finds already documented, Styrian supply appears to be largely unaffected.
Bauhaus sells in Austria "exclusively chippings from the Danube region" (calcareous/quartzitic).
Holding Graz / City of Graz: chippings from Radlpass (Eibiswald, ALAS Baustoff Holding) and Graz basin (Karl Schwarzl).
Holding Graz Straßenbahn: track stones from the Appel quarry (Styria).
ÖBB Styria: railway ballast from Preg or Feldbach.
Hornbach via supplier Scherf: no material from the four closed quarries.
Kanzelsteinbruch Gratkorn, Tieber Steinbrüche, Werke Weizklamm, Poingl, Naintsch, Völlegg, St. Jakob, Eibisberger / Strobl (Schöckl limestone), Kirchengast Schotterwerke: each asbestos-free according to material analysis or geological report.
McDonald's Styria: rock from a non-affected quarry; the company clarifies that the material mentioned in the media was located in a flower bed separated from the playground by a glass wall.
Hofer Styria: the Styrian branches are not aware of any specific supply chains from Burgenland quarries; the offered play-sand, per the supplier, comes from Hungary and is asbestos-free.
Firma "Sandstein Bau- und Gartenmaterial": according to the company, no asbestos-containing material at its suppliers; sand from Burgenland is sourced among others (note: Burgenland sand does not necessarily come from serpentinite quarries, other lithologies predominate).
Notable is the written response from Scherf GmbH (Hornbach supplier, May 2026): "There is no normative or statutory regulation requiring us to test our raw materials for asbestos content. … We have known for some decades that asbestos can occur in quarries with certain main minerals (e.g. serpentinite quarries in Burgenland) and we decided back then not to source material from potentially asbestos-burdened operations." A self-disclosure by a supplier without public pressure — it confirms from the inside view the core charge raised by Falter of a long-known but unregulated risk. The enquiries are available to Ungiftig in their wording; the citizen researcher has consented to use with anonymisation of the sender. (Source: private response correspondence February to May 2026, documented and transmitted to the editorial team.)
A short guide for your own enquiries: Whoever wants to know whether their own gravel, sand, ballast or play-sand is affected can write directly to the supplier. A typical enquiry: "Which quarries supply the chippings / gravel / sand you distribute? Are deliveries from the four officially closed Burgenland quarries (Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Postmann / Glashütten bei Schlaining, Badersdorf) excluded? What asbestos material analyses are on file?" Written responses are evidentially relevant in a later dispute.
TL;DR. More than 300 sites with asbestos-contaminated gravel are documented in Western Hungary, concentrated in Szombathely, with confirmed cities Sopron, Kőszeg, Zalaegerszeg. The Hungarian government is covering remediation costs per Magyar Közlöny. Mayor Nemény has declared a health emergency.
The toxicological relevance of asbestos-containing gravel in public space can currently be assessed most precisely through the case of the Oladi-plató residential area in Szombathely. Whereas the Burgenland task force conducted its measurement series exclusively under cold, damp winter conditions — conditions that bind asbestos fibres to the ground — Hungary provides outdoor-air measurements under dry conditions with real traffic loading.
Meanwhile, the case has expanded. In early May 2026, Mayor András Nemény stated in an interview with Kontroll.hu that, besides Szombathely, Sopron, Kőszeg and up to 30 further municipalities may be affected by the contaminated gravel — predominantly in Vas County, with further indications for Zala County and the Székesfehérvár region.
Comparison Burgenland vs. Szombathely
State Task Force Burgenland
City of Szombathely (Oladi-plató)
Measurement period
Winter 2026 (March)
Spring 2026 (April)
Weather
damp ground, snow, icy
dry
Mechanical loading
limited
regular (traffic, residents)
Number of measurement points
66
7
Highest value
829 F/m³ (Dornburggasse Oberwart)
292,000 F/m³
Comparison to background (100–150 F/m³)
up to 8×
232 to 1,947×
Official response
"Values below guideline"
public-health emergency, 10 km/h speed limit, FFP3 mask requirement
Scale of the contamination in Szombathely (Oladi-plató, parcels, road network)
Scale of the contamination in Szombathely
In the Oladi-plató residential area, Burgenland chippings were used as the surface layer on a network of unpaved streets totalling roughly 12 kilometres, without any sealing asphalt layer ever being applied. Street counts vary by definition and source: 22 streets (early reports, e.g. Savariaforum.hu), 24 streets (official press conference Stadtgemeinde Szombathely, 14 April 2026), up to 35 streets (vaol.hu, extended residential area). Prof. Tamás Weiszburg in the Telex interview of 27 April 2026 names approximately 400 parcels ("körülbelül 400 telket parcelláztak ott fel"); expanded counts go up to 500 parcels. Around 1,100 officially registered residents (vaol.hu via Telex, 14.4.2026); the area is under ongoing construction, so the number of those affected is presumably higher. (Sources: Pénzcentrum, Index.hu, vaol.hu, Telex, Savariaforum.hu.)
Outdoor-air measurements under dry conditions — methodology & values
Outdoor-air measurements under dry conditions
Official investigations by the Vas County Government Office found fibre concentrations between 34,800 and 292,000 asbestos fibres per cubic metre of outdoor air at seven measurement points. The measurements were carried out by an accredited laboratory using electron-microscopy fibre counting. According to a Greenpeace statement of 14 April 2026, the same laboratory was involved that also works for the Burgenland task force.
In material samples, asbestos fibres were detected in 6 of 12 samples.
Mineralogical key finding
"In some of the quarries from which the gravel comes, a second geological process took place in the rock, in the course of which fibrous minerals of the amphibole group were also formed. That is unambiguously highly problematic: a many-times-confirmed carcinogen. The cancer risk of amphibole asbestos is a hundred times higher than that of chrysotile. On top of this, this second geological process has also weakened the rock mechanically. When it is laid down it looks intact, but when cars drive over it, it crumbles much more easily."
— Prof. Tamás Weiszburg, Telex interview, 27 April 2026
The raw data of the Burgenland Taskforce confirm the mineralogical picture on the air-fibre layer: the asbestos fibres predominantly detected at the 66 measurement points were amphiboles (actinolite, tremolite), not chrysotile. On the rock-composition layer, the federal table (4055/AB-BR/2026) reports amphiboles for two of four quarries (Postmann and Badersdorf, in each case chrysotile + amphibole); for Pilgersdorf and Bernstein only chrysotile is reported.
Immediate official measures in Szombathely
Immediate official measures in Szombathely
Speed limit of 10 km/h, enforced by police
Daily wetting of the 12 km of gravel streets
3.5 t weight limit (truck ban, except residents)
Free distribution of FFP2 and FFP3 respirators by the Vas County Government Office
Recommendation to residents: stay indoors during dry winds, turn off air conditioning, keep children from playing outside, no prams on the streets
Temporary suspension of postal delivery in the area (from 21 April 2026)
Closure of in the meantime 19 city parking lots in Szombathely due to asbestos findings (previously 13).
Bituminous sealing of Síp utca: started on 11 May 2026, completed within three days (Ugytudjuk, 11.5.2026: ugytudjuk.hu; Economx, 12.5.2026: economx.hu; Infostart, 12.5.2026: infostart.hu). In parallel, during Minister Gajdos's visit on 14 May 2026, additional dust-binding applications using calcium chloride were carried out on approximately 20,000 m² across seven streets of the Oladi-plató.
The total volume of potentially contaminated material on the settlement is estimated at around 100,000 tonnes (Pénzcentrum, 21.4.2026: penzcentrum.hu).
Criminal complaint, government decree, crisis-unit demand
Criminal complaint, government decree, crisis-unit demand
The city council has resolved on resurfacing 12 kilometres of streets. The city is examining two options: full removal of the contaminated sub-base (roughly 42,000 cubic metres of material; 6 to 7 billion forint) or permanent sealing using a remix technology (2.5 to 3 billion forint). In April 2026 Mayor Nemény filed a criminal complaint (büntetőfeljelentés) — against the Austrian quarry operators and possibly also the Austrian state. The Hungarian prosecutor's office is conducting an investigation for environmental endangerment.
The Hungarian government has meanwhile issued a decree: the competent ministries are required to determine the extent of the contamination, examine measures to remedy health and environmental damage, and identify those responsible (ORF, 5 May 2026; SN.at, 5 May 2026).
Greenpeace is calling on the Austrian Federal Chancellery to set up a crisis unit involving several ministries, the affected states and independent experts. Greenpeace environmental chemist Herwig Schuster: the matter has reached a dimension that exceeds the capacity of the Burgenland state government "by many times". There are reports that lawsuits against Austria are already being examined in Hungary.
Change of government in May 2026 and escalation level
After the Hungarian parliamentary election of 12 April 2026 (index.hu, 12.4.2026), the new parliament convened. On 9 May 2026, Péter Magyar (Tisza party) was elected Prime Minister by 140 to 54 votes (portfolio.hu, 9.5.2026). László Gajdos was appointed Minister for the Living Environment ("élő környezetért felelős miniszter") — the first independent environment ministry since 2010.
Minister Gajdos's first field visit took him on 14 May 2026 to Szombathely; he announced a cabinet briefing for 18 May 2026 (Pénzcentrum, 14.5.2026: penzcentrum.hu). His statement there: „Ez nem maradhat következmények nélkül" ("This cannot remain without consequences").
In parallel with the political escalation, the spatial extent of the findings has continued to grow. As of 15 May 2026, Hungarian government and press sources report at least 300 documented sites in three counties (Vas, Zala, Győr-Moson-Sopron). Sopron is confirmed as a third affected city (19 streets with positive findings); Kőszeg and Zalaegerszeg are named as further affected places (Euronews, 15.5.2026: hu.euronews.com; Telex, 16.5.2026: telex.hu; Pénzcentrum, 14.–15.5.2026). The findings have thus expanded approximately tenfold between early May (Nemény: 30 settlements) and mid-May (300+ sites in three counties), reaching a new level of attention at the ministerial level.
Who applied the gravel — supply chains Hungary
Who applied the gravel, and on what basis?
Wasserwerkegenossenschaft Olad-Plató
The Wasserwerkegenossenschaft Olad-Plató (Szombathely-Olad Plató Víziközmű Társulat, president Jelinek Endre) had taken on the obligation under a contract with the City of Szombathely to develop, at its own expense, residential and collector streets, footpaths and utility lines (water, sewage, stormwater, public lighting) in the Olad-Plató residential area. According to the City of Szombathely (official statement of 22 April 2026), this obligation has not been fulfilled to date; the streets therefore remain under the responsibility of the cooperative.
The cooperative stated on 14 April 2026 that it had filled the streets "with materials inspected by the Austrian authorities and below the asbestos contamination limit value" (Telex, 14.4.2026, citing vaol.hu; Hungarian original: „az osztrák hatóságok által bevizsgált, az azbeszt szennyezettségi határérték alatti anyagokkal"). It claimed to have learned of the closure of the four Burgenland quarries only from Austrian media.
This statement raises methodological and legal questions. In Austria, there is currently no statutory limit for the asbestos content of rock — the only binding figure in occupational protection is the fibre concentration in workplace air (10,000 F/m³ since 31 December 2025, GKV-Novelle 2025). An "asbestos contamination limit-value" inspection by authorities in the sense described by the cooperative has no clear legal basis in this form. Which concrete authority documents, delivery papers or expert reports were accepted as an "inspection" has not yet been clearly documented publicly.
Private individuals with "asbestos-free" certificates
In an interview with the Hungarian online portal Kontroll.hu (early May 2026, widely quoted via APA), Mayor Nemény stated that private individuals had also bought material accompanied by certificates of asbestos-freeness. On this basis, the City of Szombathely has filed a complaint against unknown persons. Which actors issued the certificates, on what methodology (mass content, fibre counting, other) they were based, and whether they were issued for individual quarries, delivery batches or generally, is not yet publicly known. The wording of the certificates is not publicly available.
Statement of the Pilgersdorf operations manager and counter-evidence from authorities and mineralogy
The operations manager of the closed Pilgersdorf quarry, Frank Eichhorn, told ORF Burgenland (report dated 9 May 2026, burgenland.orf.at/stories/3353417) that, following his own on-site visit in Szombathely, the gravel there was — in his impression — not serpentinite from Burgenland quarries.
This statement based on visual inspection stands in methodological and factual conflict with four independently documented authority or mineralogical findings:
Vas Vármegyei Kormányhivatal (statement of 13 April 2026): the material originates from Austrian quarries (Rumpersdorf, Badersdorf, Bernstein, Pilgersdorf); the asbestos concentration exceeds the health limits several times over (kormanyhivatalok.hu).
Mineralogical analysis by Prof. Tamás Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest), Telex interview of 27 April 2026: the Szombathely gravel originates from eight Austrian quarries; four of them contain asbestos — chrysotile and amphibole asbestos identified mineralogically (telex.hu, 27.4.2026).
Public confirmation by Hungarian Minister for the Living Environment László Gajdos, ORF ZIB 1 of 14 May 2026: the material originates from Austrian quarries, four of which have already been closed (orf.at/stories/3428835).
Official finding-securing in the road network of the Szombathely-Olad-Plató water-works cooperative (Vas Vármegyei Kormányhivatal, 13/14 April 2026): the contaminated road sections lie within the administrative responsibility of the cooperative, with material from Austrian quarries.
No independent mineralogical counter-analysis by ARGE Naturgestein or by the quarry operator is publicly available. The Eichhorn statement is to be classified as an impression (indirect speech in the ORF report), not as a laboratory-analytically supported contestation.
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 there would be no particular problem. Nobody knows how many tens or hundreds of kilometres of closed asphalt sub-base built in the western counties over the last one or two decades is still asbestos-containing. These are not dangerous now, but if the road is broken open, for instance for repairs, then asbestos investigations will become necessary for the workers' health."
— Prof. Tamás Weiszburg, Telex interview, 27 April 2026
The same applies to Lower Austria, Styria and Burgenland. Every repair operation on a road with an asbestos-containing sub-base becomes asbestos remediation in the sense of § 26 GKV — a regulatory and knowledge question that the federal government is currently not addressing systematically.
TL;DR. The assessment of the health hazard is publicly contested. The differences are not rhetorical but substantive. The decisive reference is the WHO outdoor-air value of 1,000 fibres/m³. Fact-check of the task force Q&A below.
How dangerous is the asbestos gravel — really?
The assessment of the actual health risk posed by the serpentinite gravel is publicly disputed — and the differences are substantive, not rhetorical.
What the state task force has measured
The state task force under medical professors Hans-Peter Hutter and Hanns Moshammer (Medical University of Vienna) published the full first measurement series on 25 March 2026. At all 66 measurement points across Burgenland, asbestos-fibre concentrations stayed below the 1,000 fibres/m³ guideline chosen by the task force itself. At 58 points the value was below 400 fibres/m³, at eight locations between 540 and 830 fibres/m³, with the highest value at 829 F/m³ (Dornburggasse Oberwart, 14 amphibole and 2 chrysotile fibres).
Three methodological caveats are decisive:
First: the 1,000 F/m³ guideline is not legally established. There is no binding limit for asbestos fibres in outdoor air, neither in Austria nor at EU level. The task force chose the value itself. The 1,000 F/m³ figure exists in the German asbestos guideline of 1996, but there as a statistical upper bound (95% confidence interval) on the actual clearance value of 500 F/m³ after completed remediation — or as a protection value for third parties during ongoing remediation work. Not as a value for permanent exposure of the general population in everyday living space.
Second: all measurements were taken under cold, damp winter conditions (wet ground, snow, high humidity). These conditions bind fibres to the ground. The task force itself notes in the annotations to its measurement series that a one-off measurement under such conditions is "not yet a sufficient basis for medical assessment" and that a second measurement series in summer is required.
Third: the task force 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 environmental toxicologist Dr. Norbert Weis consider the winter measurement series unrepresentative. Dust-tape measurements at ground level already show significant contamination — for instance 280 fibres per square centimetre in Badersdorf against a 100/cm² indicator threshold, 170 fibres per square centimetre in Kirchschlag. For inhalable asbestos fibres, the WHO and EU asbestos regulation apply the linear-no-threshold principle: there is no safe threshold; every additional fibre adds statistically to the risk.
The medical facts neither side disputes
Chrysotile (serpentine asbestos) and amphibole asbestos (actinolite, tremolite) are both classified as Group 1 carcinogens by the IARC.
The cancer risk of amphibole asbestos is, according to repeatedly confirmed studies, roughly a hundred times higher than that of chrysotile. The fibres predominantly detected in Burgenland are amphiboles.
Asbestos-related diseases — lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis — have latencies of 20 to 50 years. Patients diagnosed today were exposed in the 1980s or 1990s.
The fibre morphology is what makes asbestos dangerous: long, thin, biopersistent. Fibres are inhaled, lodge in the lung, and act there as a non-degradable foreign body.
Notably
The Taskforce, the quarry operators and Greenpeace agree on one demand: there has to be a clear regulatory framework at federal level. The state Taskforce called publicly on 14 February 2026 for the federal government to close the regulatory gap. Naturally occurring asbestos in rock is currently covered neither by Austria's Chemikaliengesetz 1996 nor by EU regulation. A recent peer-reviewed study by the research group around Prof. Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest) shows that of 378 EU parliamentary asbestos enquiries between 1995 and 2024, only 13 contained an explicit NOA reference — that is 3.4 % of all enquiries, or 1.3 % of all thematic codings — and even those enquiries did not reach their objectives, because the EU system has not yet captured the logic of naturally-occurring asbestos (link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-025-01273-9).
Our assessment
The scientific data do not justify reassurance. The task force'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 sensitive use — playgrounds, schools, kindergartens, hospitals — until clarification through summer measurements and assured remediation is the minimum standard, not the ceiling.
Fact-check on the state task force's Q&A page — 4 statements [4 May 2026]
Fact-check on the state task force's Q&A page
The state task force communicates its findings at burgenland.at/themen/gesundheit/taskforce-vorsorgeabklaerung-luftqualitaet also in the form of a Q&A page. Several statements there are, from a scientific perspective, either reductive or in tension with other statements from the same source. We address four of them.
Statement 1: "In bound form, asbestos poses no danger and is not health-hazardous."
Assessment: this statement is scientifically defensible for intact, massive rock. It is not for mechanically broken-down road grit in public space. EPA studies from El Dorado County (California) show that activity-based fibre concentrations in the air can reach up to 43 times reference values when naturally-occurring asbestos minerals in the soil are stressed by everyday activity — sport, play, traffic. The Hungarian measurement data from Szombathely confirm this quantitatively. The ATSDR (US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) concluded in 2005 that breathing naturally-occurring asbestos in the El Dorado Hills area has, over a lifetime, the potential to harm health. Mineralogically, the Burgenland situation is comparable to El Dorado; in both cases amphibole fibres dominate.
Statement 2: "For bound asbestos, the risk … is classified as extremely low" — and at the same time: "As a precaution, the task force recommends in future avoiding the use of asbestos-containing rock in road construction."
Assessment: these two sentences sit immediately next to each other in the Q&A. If the risk were "extremely low," there would be no scientific basis for avoiding the material in road construction. If avoidance is appropriate, the risk is not "extremely low." This tension is not resolved by additional context — it remains as a visible internal contradiction.
Statement 3: "From a medical perspective, there is currently no cause for concern."
Assessment: this statement appears in the Q&A under the question whether children should be specifically protected. Further down in the same source the task force itself states that winter measurements are "not representative of the air situation" and that a one-off measurement is "not yet a sufficient basis for medical assessment." A medical all-clear cannot be derived from data the originators themselves declare insufficient for assessment. On top of this: the task force notes in the annotations to its own measurement series that "values above the expected background loading give cause for action under the precautionary principle of public-health protection." That is the technically correct statement. It does not appear with comparable clarity in the publicly communicated Q&A.
Statement 4: "Under normal traffic loading, it is not to be assumed that asbestos fibres release from the gravel."
The Q&A adds restrictively that a fibre release requires "massive mechanical impact".
Assessment: "not to be assumed" is not a scientific category but a probabilistic statement without quantitative basis. Official outdoor air measurements in the Oladi-plató residential area in Szombathely — on roads with the same material from the same quarries, under normal traffic loading — show the opposite: fibre concentrations that reach 232 to 1,947 times the natural outdoor-air background. Precisely the "massive mechanical impact" that the Q&A wants to exclude as a trigger already corresponds in practice to regular traffic on unsealed, dry-conditions gravel. The Szombathely values were not collected by an NGO but by the Vas County Government Office in the course of an official investigation that led to the declaration of a public-health emergency. They sit in the same data category as the Taskforce values (accredited laboratory, electron-microscopy fibre counting), but differ in weather and loading.
Where the discrepancy lies
The task force communicates simultaneously on two levels. On the level of the data annotations: winter measurements not representative, summer series required, values above background trigger precautionary action. On the level of the public Q&A: no cause for concern, extremely low risk, normal traffic loading unproblematic. The second level entirely relativises the first — but the first level does not reach the public with comparable visibility.
TL;DR. Two own DAkkS-accredited lab analyses from May 2026: actinolite asbestos at a children's playground in Kotezicken; chrysotile asbestos at 20–50 percent mass content on the loading ramp of a quarry not currently closed. External expert opinion from Montanuniversität Leoben below.
Own sampling: two findings from May 2026
We had two of our own samples analysed by the DAkkS-accredited testing laboratory CRB Analyse Service GmbH (accreditation number D-PL-19161-01-00). Sampling was carried out on 22 April 2026 by Dr. Maximilian Mandl (geochemist, ETH Zürich). The analysis was performed in accordance with VDI guideline 3866 Sheet 5:2017-06 — the established procedure in Germany and Austria for the qualitative identification of asbestos in material samples by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). The underlying fibre definition follows WHO criteria (length > 5 µm, diameter < 3 µm, length-to-diameter ratio > 3:1).
Finding 1: gravel of a children's playground path in Kotezicken (Burgenland)
Parameter
Value
Sample location
Kotezicken (Burgenland), gravel of a public children's playground path
Sampling
22 April 2026, Dr. Maximilian Mandl
Sample type
Smear preparation (SP), detection limit 0.1% by mass
Analytical method
SEM-EDX per VDI 3866 Sheet 5:2017-06
Asbestos detected
YES — actinolite
Mass class
Class 2 (1 to 5 per cent asbestos by mass)
Test report
CRB no. 26-06249, released 4 May 2026
Mineralogical context: actinolite is a mineral of the amphibole group and is among the asbestos forms classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen by the IARC and WHO. According to current mineralogical and epidemiological research — and explicitly also the assessment of Prof. Tamás Weiszburg (Eötvös Loránd University Budapest) — actinolite asbestos is significantly more aggressive than chrysotile. The cross-sectional dimension of 1.988 µm marked in the SEM image (CRB annex sheet 2/2) documents the fibre diameter (short axis) and thus lies within the WHO fibre definition (diameter < 3 µm); the fibre length of the displayed actinolite fibre is, by the 10 µm scale bar, clearly above 5 µm, and together with the aspect ratio > 3:1 it fulfils the WHO fibre criteria.
Assessment of the location: this is the gravel of a public children's playground path. It is subject to everyday mechanical wear — through walking, running, playing, digging in the gravel, by cleaning vehicles and weather. Precisely the kinds of mechanical wear that, according to the state of NOA research (see in-depth Hungary analysis above), lead to fibre release into the air. From an environmental-medicine perspective the presence of actinolite asbestos in the gravel of a children's playground is not acceptable. We informed the responsible municipality and the district administration in writing on 5 May 2026.
Finding 2: active loading ramp of a not-currently-closed quarry
Parameter
Value
Sample location
Active loading ramp of a quarry currently not under official closure, in the same geological complex (southern Burgenland Rechnitzer Window) as the four officially closed quarries. Anonymised for legal reasons. Status of external verification: BH Oberpullendorf and BMASGPK informed in writing on 5/6 May 2026; an independent official confirmation is pending. The full CRB test report (with anonymised location) is available as PDF.
Sampling
22 April 2026, Dr. Maximilian Mandl
Sample type
Smear preparation (SP), detection limit 0.1% by mass
Analytical method
SEM-EDX per VDI 3866 Sheet 5:2017-06
Asbestos detected
YES — chrysotile
Mass class
Class 4 (20 to 50 per cent asbestos by mass)
Test report
CRB no. 26-06249, released 4 May 2026
Mineralogical context: chrysotile (Mg₃Si₂O₅(OH)₄) is the serpentine form of asbestos, also an IARC Group 1 carcinogen and mineralogically typical of serpentinite occurrences. The EDX spectrum shows the classical chrysotile signal with dominant magnesium and silicon; the SEM image shows the long, bundled fibre structures characteristic of chrysotile. Mass class 4 (20 to 50 per cent) means: asbestos is not a trace contaminant but a dominant component of the material.
Geological context: the sampled quarry nominally extracts a different rock from the four officially closed quarries — diabase (in current nomenclature metabasalt or greenschist) rather than serpentinite. This formal lithological separation is, however, a simplification of the geological picture. The southern Burgenland region belongs to the Penninic nappe complex including the Rechnitzer Fenster, an ophiolite sequence — a geologically connected series of former oceanic-floor rocks. Diabases/metabasalts and serpentinites form in such complexes from the same tectonic unit; they are spatially interlinked, and their boundaries are often gradational. Hydrothermal fluids migrating along fractures and shear zones mineralise both lithologies — and it is precisely in this mineralisation that fibrous minerals form, including chrysotile. The lithological label of a quarry in the mining register is therefore not a reliable indicator of whether the material is asbestos-free. What matters is the regional geology and mineralogical investigation.
Assessment of the location: Subject to official verification, the finding suggests that the closure of four quarries does not conclusively address the regional asbestos problem. Material in the same order of magnitude is currently being placed on the market on a regular basis from a not-currently-closed quarry in the same geological complex. We have informed the Oberpullendorf district administration and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection in writing about the finding and attached the full test report; external confirmation by the authority or third parties is, as of 24 May 2026, still pending.
What these findings document
The asbestos contamination is not limited to the four officially closed quarries. At least one further active quarry in the region delivers material in mass class 4.
The regional geology makes it plausible that further quarries declared as "non-serpentinite" within the same tectonic unit could show similar findings. A systematic sampling of all active quarries in the southern Burgenland region by an independent body is overdue.
The findings come from an accredited DAkkS testing laboratory, methodologically per VDI 3866 Sheet 5 — that is, by precisely the standard criticised in the ARGE press releases, but which is the standard in accredited testing laboratories.
Actinolite (amphibole asbestos) in the gravel of a children's playground is an unambiguously action-relevant finding. The fibre type matches the class described by Prof. Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest) as "roughly a hundred times more aggressive than chrysotile."
Test report — download
The full test report by CRB Analyse Service GmbH, including SEM images, EDX spectra and a description of the method, is available here:
Expert opinion of Montanuniversität Leoben (Prof. Melcher, May 2026)
Expert opinion of the Montanuniversität Leoben
On 8 May 2026, the Land Burgenland publicly confirmed that the expert opinion commissioned by the district administrative authorities of Oberwart and Oberpullendorf on the four closed quarries had been transmitted to the authorities. The lead expert is Univ.-Prof. Dr. Frank Melcher, head of the Chair of Geology and Economic Geology at the Montanuniversität Leoben. The opinion is supplemented by dispersion calculations from Geosphere Austria and by fibre counts under TRGS 517. According to district authority head Peter Bubik, the result of a German institute is still awaited.
Prof. Melcher's dual role: Univ.-Prof. Melcher is both a member of the Burgenland Taskforce Vorsorgeabklärung Luftqualität (see member list at burgenland.at) and — commissioned by the district authorities of Oberwart and Oberpullendorf — the lead expert in the official proceedings on the four closed quarries. His public statements on diabase fibre formation and on the regulatory gap are therefore not an external counter-assessment of the Taskforce, but a Taskforce-internal self-correction by its most expert member — which raises rather than lowers the weight of those statements.
Methodology
The investigations comprise 67 rock samples (hand specimens) from the quarries and 46 product samples and are documented across roughly 1,200 pages. The methodological steps:
Sample preparation of the product samples: homogenisation and sieving to standard; grinding of the fine fractions.
Mineral analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD).
Microscopic and scanning-electron-microscopy (SEM-EDX) analysis to determine fibre dimensions and chemical composition.
Spot-check laser Raman spectroscopy.
Quantitative fibre count and proportion of WHO fibres under TRGS 517.
Solid-rock samples: sawn, polished (thin sections of 25 µm), microscopically documented, SEM-EDX, supplemented with XRD and laser Raman.
As the Land states, "two independent and methodologically different datasets" are thereby available. The official Land Burgenland press release of 8 May 2026 and the ORF Burgenland report of 7 May 2026 do not name the executing entities (sample preparation, XRD lab, fibre-counting lab). According to third-party reporting, likely involved were MAPAG (sample preparation), TU Graz (XRD) and ESW Consulting Wruss ZT GmbH ("WRUSS", fibre counting under TRGS 517) — but this attribution remains subject to public confirmation by the commissioning or executing parties.
Results — not yet public
The concrete measured values and mineralogical findings of the Montanuni opinion are not currently public. The authority justifies this on the grounds of the ongoing proceedings and protection of party rights. The next steps — for instance, whether the quarries may resume operation under conditions — will be coordinated between the district administrative authorities and the competent federal ministries.
Public statements by Prof. Melcher
Even though the concrete results are confidential, Prof. Melcher has provided public assessments in several interviews (ORF Burgenland 7 May 2026, Land Burgenland press release 8 May 2026) that are relevant to the assessment of the overall situation:
"The effort was enormous, but absolutely necessary, in order to obtain reliable results on the chemical and mineralogical composition of the samples with regard to extremely fine asbestos fibres. […] The work of the task force and the Land Burgenland represents important groundwork. Our analyses should be used to close existing legal gaps and establish Austria-wide limits for products and ambient-air loadings with respect to asbestos — these are currently missing."
— Prof. Frank Melcher, Land Burgenland press release, 8 May 2026
From the ORF Burgenland interview of 7 May 2026:
"The asbestos contamination differs from quarry to quarry in the type of asbestos minerals and in the amount. In the various products we also found strongly differing quantities of fibres."
— Prof. Frank Melcher, ORF Burgenland, 7 May 2026
And on the regional reach of the problem:
"In Burgenland alone, over one million tonnes of serpentinite are extracted; counting all federal states, that would be two and a half to three million tonnes. If we take in other raw materials that can also form fibres — and these are not only serpentinites but also the so-called diabases — then we would quickly reach five, six, seven million tonnes per year. That would be 10 per cent that would be missing and which we would have to import from somewhere else."
— Prof. Frank Melcher, ORF Burgenland, 7 May 2026
What we conclude from the public portion
The question "Is asbestos contamination quarry-specific?" is answered with a clear "yes". Selective extraction (separating asbestos-rich from asbestos-poor zones within a single quarry) is therefore on the table as a possible approach, but would require further expert opinions and close monitoring measurements.
The statement on diabases supports our own sampling results from May 2026 (see Own sampling). The asbestos problem extends beyond the nominal material "serpentinite".
The call for Austria-wide limits for products and ambient-air loadings matches the position of the state task force from 14 February 2026 and the NOA research group led by Prof. Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest, Environmental Sciences Europe 2026): there is a regulatory gap at EU level and in Austria.
The fact that the result of a German institute is still being awaited points to an investigation procedure for which there is no capacity in Austria. Which procedure is involved is not publicly specified.
TL;DR. The recommendation to self-dispose of asbestos-containing material is technically and legally problematic (GKV § 26). Two open letters, to Prof. Hutter (task force lead, MedUni Vienna) and Prof. Kirschbaum (KiProCon, ARGE expert), remain unanswered. Fact-check on the ARGE press conference of 27 April 2026 below.
Who says what
State Task Force BurgenlandHutter / Moshammer, MedUni Vienna
"Values below guideline, no cause for concern."
Montanuni LeobenProf. Melcher, Taskforce member and official expert
Diabase is fibre-forming; Austria-wide limits for products and ambient air are missing.
ELTE BudapestProf. Weiszburg
Amphibole asbestos in parts of the material; cancer risk a hundred times higher than chrysotile.
GreenpeaceSchuster
Federal Chancellery should set up a crisis unit; the scale exceeds state capacity.
ARGE NaturgesteinKirschbaum, KiProCon
Methodological critique; press conference inside the officially closed Pilgersdorf quarry.
Ungiftig FlexCoMandl
Actinolite on Kotezicken playground; chrysotile mass class 4 in a non-closed quarry.
Fact check: two statements by Hans-Peter Hutter in Falter (26 May 2026)
In Falter (issue 22/2026), task force lead Hans-Peter Hutter cast doubt on the gravel's origin and on the Hungarian readings. Both statements are not compatible with the publicly documented record.
The laboratory: The high Szombathely values (up to 292,000 fibres/m³) were, per Greenpeace, determined „unter Beteiligung des gleichen Labors, das auch für das Land Burgenland aktiv ist" (with the participation of the same laboratory that is also active for the Land Burgenland), namely by the Vienna firm ESW Consulting WRUSS (ORF, 2 February 2026). The lower Austrian values stem from fibre-suppressing winter and humidity 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.
Taskforce Asbestos Burgenland: Is the state recommending self-disposal of asbestos material?
On 15 April 2026, ORF Burgenland reported on a find in Ollersdorf. In the same report, the state task force was quoted with the following recommendation:
„Gemeinden und Privatpersonen sollten nachgewiesenes Asbest- oder verdächtiges Material unter Einsatz von Wasser entfernen und fachgerecht entsorgen."
[Translation: "Municipalities and private individuals should remove confirmed or suspect asbestos material using water and dispose of it properly."]
On the question of where to take the material:
„Für eine Rückgabe oder Reklamation des Materials sei der seinerzeitige Verkäufer zuständig — hierbei könnte es sich zum Beispiel um einen Steinbruch handeln."
[Translation: "The original seller would be responsible for taking the material back — this could, for example, be a quarry."]
Why this recommendation is problematic
With the 2025 amendment to the Austrian Workplace Limits Regulation (Grenzwerteverordnung, BGBl. II 339/2025), the legislator decided that demolition or asbestos-remediation work may be carried out exclusively by employers who are authorised under § 26 GKV and entered in an official list of the federal ministry. Prerequisites are documented protective measures, extraction or sedimentation of fibres, decontamination procedures, sealed containers for waste, and theoretical and practical training under § 25a GKV.
Private individuals are by definition not authorised and cannot be authorised. When the task force recommends to them precisely those activities that the legislator has reserved for certified specialist firms, that is in clear tension with the GKV.
On top of that come the requirements for transport and disposal: asbestos-containing waste is classified as hazardous waste under the waste-catalogue regulation. Handover is permitted only to a collector authorised under § 24a AWG 2002; transport requires sealed packaging with asbestos labelling under § 22a para. 2 sub-para. 3 GKV (the precondition for the SV 168 ADR exemption). Private individuals typically have neither such containers nor contacts to authorised collectors.
The task force's website at burgenland.at/themen/gesundheit/taskforce-vorsorgeabklaerung-luftqualitaet contains more detailed recommendations on protective equipment, but these were not reproduced 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 this recommendation, we sent a formal letter on 15 April 2026 to OA Assoz.-Prof. Priv.-Doz. DI Dr. med. Hans-Peter Hutter, head of the state task force 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?
Read the full letter (15 April 2026)
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Hutter,
ich bin Geochemiker (PhD ETH Zürich) und betreibe ungiftig.at, eine Schadstoffberatung in Niederösterreich und Burgenland. Ich verfolge die Arbeit der Taskforce aufmerksam und erhalte derzeit täglich Anfragen von Betroffenen aus der Region.
In einem aktuellen ORF-Bericht wird die Taskforce mit folgender Empfehlung zitiert: Gemeinden und Privatpersonen sollten nachgewiesenes oder verdächtiges Material unter Einsatz von Wasser entfernen und fachgerecht entsorgen. Als Rückgabeweg wird der ursprüngliche Verkäufer, etwa ein Steinbruch, genannt.
Dazu habe ich eine konkrete fachliche Frage: Auf welcher rechtlichen und sicherheitstechnischen Grundlage beruht diese Empfehlung?
Nach meinem Verständnis gilt asbesthaltiges Material unter der VVEA als gefährlicher Abfall. Für dessen Handhabung, Transport und Entsorgung gelten spezifische Vorschriften, die Privatpersonen ohne entsprechende Ausrüstung und Kenntnisse in der Regel nicht erfüllen können. Die Empfehlung zur Eigenentfernung und Rückgabe an den Steinbruch lässt diese Anforderungen unerwähnt.
Mich interessiert, ob die Taskforce diese Einschränkungen bewusst ausgelassen hat, weil sie für natürlich vorkommenden Asbest im Gestein rechtlich eine andere Einschätzung vertritt, oder ob eine Klarstellung geplant ist.
Ich frage nicht, um zu konfrontieren, sondern weil ich täglich Menschen berate, die auf Basis dieser Empfehlung handeln wollen, und weil ich ihnen eine korrekte Auskunft schulde.
Für eine Rückmeldung wäre ich dankbar.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Dr. Maximilian Mandl ungiftig.at, +43 720 732 583
Open letter to Prof. Hutter (26 April 2026)
Our private letter of 15 April has gone unanswered. Additional points have since become unavoidable — in particular the tension with § 26 GKV, the task force's self-chosen guideline of 1,000 fibres/m³, and the absence of immediate measures at known finding sites. We are following up with an open letter. The response will be published on this page in full and unaltered, once it arrives.
Read full open letter (26 April 2026)
Offener Brief an OA Assoz.-Prof. Priv.-Doz. DI Dr. med. Hans-Peter Hutter
Nachfrage zur Taskforce-Empfehlung vom 15. April 2026, bisher unbeantwortet
An:
OA Assoz.-Prof. Priv.-Doz. DI Dr. med. Hans-Peter Hutter
Abteilung für Umwelthygiene und Umweltmedizin
Medizinische Universität Wien
hans-peter.hutter@meduniwien.ac.at
CC: Jürgen Klatzer, Der Falter; Redaktion ORF Burgenland (info.bgld@orf.at)
Von:
Dr. Maximilian Mandl, Geochemiker (PhD ETH Zürich)
ungiftig.at, servus@ungiftig.at
Datum: 26. April 2026
Erstschreiben: 15. April 2026, bisher unbeantwortet
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Hutter,
am 15. April 2026 habe ich Ihnen schriftlich Fragen zur fachlichen und rechtlichen Grundlage einer Taskforce-Empfehlung gestellt. Eine Antwort ist bisher ausgeblieben. Ich stelle diese Fragen hiermit erneut, diesmal als offenen Brief, der auf ungiftig.at veröffentlicht wird. Ihre Antwort wird vollständig und unverändert ebenfalls veröffentlicht.
In einem ORF-Bericht vom 15. April 2026 wurde die Taskforce mit folgender Empfehlung zitiert:
„Gemeinden und Privatpersonen sollten nachgewiesenes Asbest- oder verdächtiges Material unter Einsatz von Wasser entfernen und fachgerecht entsorgen."
Zur Frage des Verbleibs hieß es:
„Für eine Rückgabe oder Reklamation des Materials sei der seinerzeitige Verkäufer zuständig, hierbei könnte es sich zum Beispiel um einen Steinbruch handeln."
Dazu habe ich vier konkrete fachliche Fragen.
Frage 1: Eigendurchführung durch Privatpersonen im Verhältnis zu § 26 GKV
Die Taskforce-Empfehlung im ORF-Bericht nennt Wasser als einzige Schutzmaßnahme bei der Entfernung. Privatpersonen, an die sich die Empfehlung explizit richtet, beziehen ihre Information aus genau diesen öffentlichen Kanälen, nicht aus internen Arbeitsanweisungen der Taskforce.
Mit der GKV-Novelle 2025 hat der österreichische Gesetzgeber jedoch entschieden, dass Abbruch- oder Asbestsanierungsarbeiten ausschließlich von Arbeitgeberinnen und Arbeitgebern durchgeführt werden dürfen, die nach § 26 GKV ermächtigt und in eine offizielle Liste des Bundesministeriums eingetragen sind. Voraussetzung sind nachgewiesene Schutzmaßnahmen zur Expositionsminimierung, Absaugung oder Sedimentierung der Fasern, Dekontaminationsverfahren, geschlossene Behältnisse für Abfall, sowie eine theoretische und praktische Unterweisung gemäß § 25a GKV.
Privatpersonen sind per Definition nicht ermächtigt und können nicht ermächtigt werden. Die Empfehlung der Taskforce, dass Privatpersonen genau jene Tätigkeiten in Eigenregie durchführen sollen, die der Gesetzgeber zertifizierten Fachbetrieben vorbehalten hat, steht in einem deutlichen Spannungsverhältnis zu § 26 GKV. Auch wenn die Norm formal Arbeitgeber adressiert, beschreibt sie den Mindeststandard für eine sichere Durchführung. Privatpersonen atmen dieselben Fasern ein und sind in der Regel ungeschulter im Umgang mit dem Material.
Frage: Wie verhält sich die Empfehlung an Privatpersonen zur gesetzlichen Festlegung in § 26 GKV, dass Asbestsanierungsarbeiten ermächtigten Fachbetrieben vorbehalten sind, und welche konkreten Schutzmaßnahmen empfiehlt die Taskforce in der öffentlichen Risikokommunikation für Privatpersonen, die sich an die Selbstentfernungs-Empfehlung halten?
Frage 2: Praktischer Entsorgungsweg über den Verkäufer
Die Empfehlung nennt den ursprünglichen Verkäufer, etwa einen Steinbruch, als zuständige Stelle für eine „Rückgabe oder Reklamation". Zwei Lesarten sind denkbar. Entweder ist eine direkte physische Rückgabe an das Steinbruchgelände gemeint, oder eine zivilrechtliche Rückabwicklung, in deren Rahmen der Verkäufer eine fachgerechte Entsorgung über einen nach § 24a AWG 2002 befugten Sammler veranlasst. Die erste Lesart wäre abfallrechtlich problematisch, da ein Steinbruch keine genehmigte Entsorgungsanlage für gefährliche Abfälle ist. Die zweite Lesart ist rechtlich saubere Praxis, geht aber aus dem ORF-Zitat nicht hervor.
Frage: Wie ist die Empfehlung praktisch gemeint, also direkter Transport durch die Privatperson zum Steinbruch oder Rückabwicklung über lizenzierte Entsorger auf Veranlassung des Verkäufers? Eine Klarstellung würde verhindern, dass Betroffene Material in Eigenregie zum Steinbruch transportieren.
Frage 3: Praktische Durchführbarkeit der Gesamtkette für Privatpersonen
Die Empfehlung richtet sich explizit an „Gemeinden und Privatpersonen". Die fachgerechte Gesamtkette umfasst nach geltendem österreichischen Recht mindestens drei Schritte: Manipulation mit geeignetem Atemschutz, Schutzkleidung und Wasser nach den Vorgaben des 4. Abschnitts der GKV, Verpackung in geschlossenen Behältnissen mit Asbest-Kennzeichnung gemäß § 22a Abs. 2 Z 3 GKV (Voraussetzung für die Freistellung nach SV 168 ADR), und Übergabe an einen nach § 24a AWG 2002 befugten Sammler.
Privatpersonen unterliegen GKV und ADR formal nicht in vollem Umfang, verfügen aber auch nicht über die Mittel, die diese Normen voraussetzen: keine geeignete Schutzausrüstung, keine geschlossenen Spezialbehältnisse, keine Kontakte zu befugten Sammlern, keine Schulung im Umgang mit Asbestabfall. Die Normen sind nicht Schikane, sondern beschreiben den Mindeststandard für eine ungefährliche Handhabung. Die ORF-Empfehlung nennt nur Wasser und den Steinbruch, die Schritte dazwischen bleiben offen.
Frage: Wie soll die Gesamtkette von der Entfernung bis zur ordnungsgemäßen Entsorgung nach Vorstellung der Taskforce durch Privatpersonen praktisch und sicher bewerkstelligt werden, und welche konkrete Anleitung gibt die Taskforce dazu?
Frage 4: Wissenschaftliche Grundlage des Richtwerts von 1.000 Fasern/m³
Die Taskforce hat ihre Messreihe (66 Messpunkte, März 2026) am Richtwert von 1.000 Fasern/m³ bewertet. Einen gesetzlich festgelegten Grenzwert für Asbestfasern in der Außenluft im allgemeinen Lebensraum gibt es weder in Österreich noch auf EU-Ebene. Etablierte Werte aus angrenzenden Bereichen sind jedoch verfügbar: In der deutschen Asbest-Richtlinie (1996) wird 1.000 F/m³ als statistische Obergrenze (95%-Konfidenzintervall) zum eigentlichen Freigabewert von 500 F/m³ nach abgeschlossener Sanierung definiert. Daneben steht der Wert von 1.000 F/m³ als Schutzwert für Dritte während aktiver Sanierungsarbeiten. Die natürliche Hintergrundbelastung der Außenluft liegt nach Literatur bei 100 bis 150 F/m³. Die WHO-Position für lungengängige Asbestfasern beruht auf dem Linear-No-Threshold-Prinzip.
Der von der Taskforce gewählte Wert entspricht damit weder einem Freigabewert nach Sanierung (500 F/m³ Messwert) noch einem Wert für die natürliche Außenluft, sondern einem zeitlich befristeten Schutzwert für Dritte während Sanierungsarbeiten. Im Burgenland besteht dieser Zustand jedoch dauerhaft und ohne aktive Sanierung.
Frage: Auf welcher publizierten wissenschaftlichen Grundlage hat die Taskforce den Wert von 1.000 Fasern/m³ als Richtwert für die dauerhafte Belastung der allgemeinen Bevölkerung im öffentlichen Raum gewählt, statt einen Wert anzulegen, der dem Charakter der Exposition (Daueraufenthalt, keine aktive Sanierung) entspricht?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Dr. Maximilian Mandl ungiftig.at +43 720 732 583
Both responses — should they arrive — will be published here in full and unaltered. Should they not, we will note that as well.
Fact-check ARGE Naturgestein (press conference 27 April 2026) — 5 statements + letter to Kirschbaum
Fact-check on ARGE Naturgestein and the press conference of 27 April 2026
In mid-April 2026, the four affected quarry operators joined forces as ARGE Naturgestein. On 27 April 2026, the group held a press conference in the officially closed Pilgersdorf quarry, together with Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kirschbaum (KiProCon, visiting lecturer at RWTH Aachen) as external expert. We address the central statements.
Statement 1: "Asbestos in rock is bound and therefore harmless."
Assessment: for intact, massive rock in its natural setting this statement is correct. Road grit on roads, boccia courts, playgrounds or paths is no longer massive rock, however, but already broken-down material subject to ongoing mechanical wear (traffic, weathering, freeze-thaw cycles, cleaning). The Burgenland task force's measurement series shows empirically elevated fibre concentrations precisely at locations with mechanical wear; the Szombathely outdoor air measurements show under dry conditions values that exceed the natural level of outdoor air by orders of magnitude. On top of this comes the mineralogical finding by Prof. Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest): in parts of the material, a second geological process has additionally weakened the strength — the rock crumbles under wear more easily than its appearance suggests.
Statement 2: "Greenpeace used the wrong laboratory method (VDI 3866 instead of TRGS 517)."
Assessment: the question of the correct method is a legitimate methodological discussion. In the ARGE statement, however, it is framed as an either/or — and it is not. The two procedures are complementary, not alternative.
VDI guideline 3866 Sheet 5 serves for the qualitative identification of asbestos-containing material: Is asbestos contained, and what kind? It is the standard procedure used in accredited DAkkS testing laboratories to identify asbestos in material samples — including in investigations commissioned by authorities, expert witnesses, and remediation firms. Greenpeace's testing followed VDI 3866, and our own findings from 22 April 2026 (→ Own sampling) were also produced under this standard.
TRGS 517 is the German technical rule for assessing activities involving naturally occurring asbestos-containing minerals and contains methodology for the quantitative fibre count (number of WHO fibres per unit volume). Precisely this fibre count was carried out in the current Montanuniversität Leoben expert opinion (as of 8 May 2026) by the firm WRUSS under TRGS 517 (→ Montanuni expert opinion).
A qualitative identification under VDI 3866 and a quantitative fibre count under TRGS 517 answer different questions. Both have their justification, both are used in accredited testing practice, and they do not exclude one another.
In addition, a semantic clarification: the title of VDI 3866 Sheet 5 addresses "technical products". Crushed gravel and aggregate are, in the literal reading, natural rock — but as broken, classified and placed-on-the-market construction product they routinely fall under this norm in accredited DAkkS testing practice. Our own sampling by CRB Analyse Service GmbH (accredited DAkkS testing laboratory, D-PL-19161-01-00) on 22 April 2026 is concrete evidence of this. Which norm applies in a given case depends on the specific question being asked — see also the note below on Air measurements vs. measurements in rock.
Methodological critique would only be incisive if an actor had presented a quantitative fibre count as a Greenpeace finding without having carried it out under TRGS 517 (or an equivalent standard). Greenpeace, to our knowledge, has made no such claim. The official closure of the four quarries in January 2026 was moreover based on asbestos contents between 5 and 50 per cent in the rock — values from authority investigations, not from Greenpeace.
Statement 3: "The whitish-grey material in the quarry is not asbestos but precipitated magnesium."
Assessment: this claim by Prof. Kirschbaum is mineralogically conceivable in principle; in serpentinite occurrences, secondary magnesium carbonates (magnesite, hydromagnesite) can appear as whitish efflorescences. An unambiguous distinction from asbestos minerals by eye alone is not possible, however. What would be required is an analytical differentiation in the laboratory, for instance by X-ray diffraction or electron microscopy with element-analytical components. Until such differentiation is publicly produced, the magnesium claim remains a hypothesis, not a documented counter-analysis.
Statement 4: "There was no danger to participants of the disaster-response drill in Pilgersdorf."
Assessment: in October 2025 a disaster-response drill with 447 people, including 27 schoolchildren, took place at the Pilgersdorf quarry. Parts of the drill were held directly under the conveyor belt below the rock crusher. Three months later the same quarry was closed by the authorities for asbestos contamination. The operators' argument that the plant had been idle the day before, so no fresh dust would have been in the air, is toxicologically insufficient: asbestos dust is biopersistent and does not break down. Settled dust on surfaces and equipment is inevitably re-aerosolised by the kinetic energy of 447 people, response vehicles and rescue exercises under the conveyor belt. On 17 April 2026, Greenpeace filed a statement of facts with the Eisenstadt public prosecutor — for endangering physical safety and creating a public hazard. Named in the complaint: the quarry operator, the district authority, and provincial councillor Heinrich Dorner (SPÖ). The province of Burgenland is considering a counter-complaint for defamation.
Statement 5: "The closure causes over 3 million additional truck-kilometres of transport per year."
Assessment: the ecological accounting of additional transport is real and legitimate. It is not an argument for reopening asbestos-contaminated quarries, however. The two risk categories — CO₂ emissions from transport on the one hand, fibre exposure to a Group 1 IARC carcinogen on the other — are not netted against each other. They require separate answers: better logistics on one side, safe alternative material sources on the other.
Open letter to Prof. Kirschbaum (26 April 2026)
In the OTS press releases of ARGE Naturgestein, several statements are attributed to Prof. Kirschbaum that require technical follow-up. We sent an open letter on 26 April 2026. The response will be published here in full and unaltered, once it arrives.
Read full open letter (26 April 2026)
Offener Brief an Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kirschbaum
Wissenschaftliche Rückfragen zu Aussagen in den OTS-Pressemitteilungen der ARGE Naturgestein, April 2026
An:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt.Ing. Martin Kirschbaum
KiProCon Dr. Kirschbaum Project-Consulting GmbH & CoKG
kirschbaum@kiprocon.de
Von:
Dr. Maximilian Mandl, Geochemiker (PhD ETH Zürich)
ungiftig.at, servus@ungiftig.at
Datum: 26. April 2026
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Kirschbaum,
ich schreibe Ihnen in Bezug auf zwei OTS-Pressemitteilungen der ARGE Naturgestein vom April 2026, in denen fachliche Aussagen unter Ihrem Namen veröffentlicht wurden. Ich beziehe mich ausschließlich auf diese Aussendungen. Wo es sich um wörtliche Zitate handelt, kennzeichne ich das; wo die Zuschreibung durch die ARGE ohne direktes Zitat erfolgt, bitte ich vorab um Bestätigung.
Ich stelle diese Fragen als offenen Brief, der auf ungiftig.at veröffentlicht wird. Ihre Antwort wird vollständig und unverändert ebenfalls veröffentlicht.
Frage 1: Zum Schwellenwert mechanischer Beanspruchung
In der OTS-Aussendung vom 17. April 2026 sind Ihnen folgende Worte direkt zugeschrieben:
„Asbest ist nur dann überhaupt potenziell gefährlich, wenn das Gestein mechanischen Faktoren wie Mahlen, Schleifen, Bohren, Fräsen etc. ausgesetzt ist und dadurch mikroskopisch kleine Fasern entstehen."
Diese Aussage benennt einen klaren Gefährdungspfad: mechanische Beanspruchung führt zur Faserfreisetzung. Die Landes-Taskforce Burgenland hat in ihrer Messreihe (66 Messpunkte, 25. März 2026) die höchsten Faserkonzentrationen in der Atemluft empirisch an Standorten mit mechanischer Beanspruchung gemessen — also dort, wo Streusplitt im Dauerbetrieb durch Verkehr, Verwitterung und Reinigung beansprucht wird. Die Werte liegen zwar deutlich unter dem industriellen Niveau von Mahlen und Fräsen, aber messbar über der natürlichen Hintergrundbelastung von 100 bis 150 F/m³.
Frage: Welcher Schwellenwert mechanischer Beanspruchung ist nach Ihrer Einschätzung erforderlich, damit eine relevante Faserfreisetzung eintritt, und wie bewerten Sie die empirisch erhöhten Faserkonzentrationen, die die Taskforce an mechanisch beanspruchten Standorten gemessen hat?
Frage 2: Zur Bewertung vorliegender Atemluftmessungen unter Realbedingungen
Ihrem Zitat zufolge sind ausschließlich Atemluftmessungen aussagekräftig. Inzwischen liegen zwei voneinander unabhängige Atemluftmessdatensätze vor.
Erstens die Messreihe der Landes-Taskforce Burgenland (66 Messpunkte, REM-Verfahren, März 2026, alle Werte unter dem selbst gewählten Richtwert von 1.000 F/m³, höchster Wert 829 F/m³ an der Dornburggasse Oberwart). Diese Messungen wurden ausschließlich unter winterlich feucht-kalten Bedingungen durchgeführt, die Asbestfasern am Boden binden.
Zweitens die behördliche Untersuchung in der Wohnsiedlung Oladi-plató in Szombathely (Ungarn) auf Schotterstraßen, die nachweislich mit Material aus den nun gesperrten burgenländischen Steinbrüchen befestigt wurden. Sieben Messungen ergaben Werte zwischen 34.800 und 292.000 Asbestfasern/m³. Der gemessene Höchstwert liegt also bei dem 292-fachen des Taskforce-Richtwerts. Die ungarischen Behörden riefen den Gesundheitsnotstand aus und verordneten Sofortmaßnahmen (Tempo 10 km/h, dauerhafte Befeuchtung, FFP3-Maskenpflicht, Verbot des Kinderwagengebrauchs auf den betroffenen Straßen). Diese Messungen wurden bei trockenen Bedingungen unter Realbeanspruchung durchgeführt und laut Aussendung von Greenpeace vom 14. April 2026 unter Beteiligung des selben Labors, das auch für die burgenländische Taskforce tätig ist. Höchster Wert der Taskforce-Wintermessreihe: 829 F/m³ an der Dornburggasse Oberwart.
Es handelt sich dabei um Material von den gleichen Steinbrüchen, ein Faktor von 35 bis 292 zwischen den Werten, wobei der wesentliche systematische Unterschied meines Erachtens in der Witterung zum Messzeitpunkt liegt.
Frage: Wie bewerten Sie die methodische Repräsentativität von Atemluftmessungen, die ausschließlich unter feuchten Winterbedingungen durchgeführt wurden, angesichts der Szombathely-Daten? Und welche Schlussfolgerung ziehen Sie aus dem Befund, dass dasselbe Material unter Realbedingungen den vom Burgenland gewählten Richtwert um den Faktor 35 bis 292 überschreitet?
Frage 3: Zur Methodenkritik im Verhältnis zur eigenen Datenlage und zu den behördlichen Befunden
In der zweiten OTS-Aussendung der ARGE Naturgestein wird die Position vertreten, dass die von Greenpeace verwendete VDI-Richtlinie 3866 für die Untersuchung natürlich vorkommenden Asbests in Gesteinen nicht geeignet sei und stattdessen die TRGS 517 anzuwenden gewesen wäre. Ich bitte Sie zunächst zu bestätigen, ob diese methodische Position Ihrer ist.
Sofern ja, ergeben sich zwei konkrete Fragen.
Erstens: Methodenkritik wird erst dann zur belastbaren Gegenposition, wenn ihr eigene, nach der korrekten Methode durchgeführte Messungen entgegenstehen. Liegen Messungen der ARGE Naturgestein, von Ihnen oder durch andere Stellen nach der von Ihnen geforderten Methodik (TRGS 517) vor, und sind diese öffentlich einsehbar? Falls nein, sind solche Messungen geplant?
Zweitens: Die behördliche Sperrung der vier Steinbrüche am 2. Januar 2026 erfolgte auf Grundlage von Asbestgehalten zwischen 5 und 50 Prozent im abgebauten Serpentinit. Diese Werte stammen nicht von Greenpeace, sondern aus Untersuchungen, die der behördlichen Sperrungsentscheidung zugrunde lagen. Bezieht sich Ihre Methodenkritik auch auf diese behördlichen Befunde, und falls nein: auf welcher methodischen Grundlage akzeptieren Sie diese Werte, kritisieren aber die unter Verwendung derselben oder ähnlicher Verfahren erhobenen Greenpeace-Werte?
Frage 4: Zur Zertifizierung des beauftragten Labors
In der Aussendung heißt es, ohne direktes Zitat, allerdings Ihnen zugeschrieben, dass das von Greenpeace beauftragte Labor „nicht ausreichend zertifiziert" für Referenzmessungen sei. Ich bitte Sie zu bestätigen, ob diese Aussage Ihrer Position entspricht.
Frage: Sofern ja: welche konkrete Akkreditierung unter welchem normativen Standard fehlt dem betreffenden Labor?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Dr. Maximilian Mandl ungiftig.at +43 720 732 583
Which standard for what: workplace versus ambient exposure (as of 24 May 2026)
TL;DR. The State Task Force assesses the Großpetersdorf values against procedures and thresholds derived from worker protection. No specific Austrian or German standard exists for the multi-year exposure of residents along gravel roads. California has one, developed out of a geologically comparable situation. A full factual overview of all relevant standards is published in parallel on the dedicated reference page /en/asbestos-standards/.
What the Task Force uses
Orientation value 1,000 fibres/m³ for ambient air in Großpetersdorf. This value is set by the Task Force itself and is not codified in statute. The reference point, per the Task Force, is a factor of 1/10 of the German workplace acceptance concentration under TRGS 910 (10,000 F/m³ for an 8-hour shift exposure). Source: burgenland.at, Task Force FAQ.
Material analysis at the Montanuniversität Leoben is, per the publicly available State of Burgenland press release of 8 May 2026, conducted under TRGS 517 (fibre counting per Annex 2). Source: burgenland.at, press release 8 May 2026.
Common reference base: all three figures, the orientation value, TRGS 910, and TRGS 517, are derived from occupational-safety law for task-related exposures. They were designed to answer the question: how much asbestos enters the breathing air of a worker during an 8-hour shift in a processing facility?
What does not exist
Austria has no statutory limit value for asbestos fibres in ambient air. Consistent with that, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management (BMLUK) records in the parliamentary answer 4055/AB-BR/2026 that "international precedents" for such a rule are "not known". In Germany the 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 REACH registration under Annex V, provided they are not chemically modified (source: BMLUK 4055/AB-BR/2026). The applicability to naturally occurring asbestos in rock is the subject of an ongoing EU-level discussion. Ambient concentrations and the handling of material already placed on the market in gravel roads are not regulated by REACH (details in the Task Force fact-check section).
How California solved it
California faces a geologically comparable situation: in the Sierra Nevada foothills, in El Dorado County, and in parts of Marin County, serpentine occurrences with naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) are present. There, the same kind of material has been used for decades as gravel and chippings, including in public road construction.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued the ATCM Surfacing Applications (codified in 17 California Code of Regulations § 93106) as a binding standard for serpentine-containing material in unpaved surfacing applications: gravel roads, shoulders, parking lots. The current threshold, after the 2003 CARB strengthening, requires an asbestos mass content of less than 0.25 %; this is also the detection limit of common bulk-test methods. The original 1990s version of the ATCM allowed up to 5 %; CARB strengthened it in 2003 on the reasoning that decades of resident exposure were not sufficiently addressed at the higher value. Sources: 17 CCR § 93106 full text, CARB press release on the 2003 strengthening.
The methodological logic of CARB Method 435 differs fundamentally from TRGS 517 Annex 2 Procedure 2:
TRGS 517 Annex 2 Procedure 2 first generates respirable dust (E-Staub, < 100 µm) under worst-case conditions in a standardised dustability test. The asbestos mass fraction is measured in this respirable dust and then rescaled to the falling mass via the mass fraction of the respirable dust in the falling sample. The procedure is consistent with the scope of TRGS 517: activities in processing.
CARB Method 435, by contrast, pulverises the entire sample to 200 Tyler mesh (≤ 75 µm) before evaluation. Evaluation is done by polarised-light microscopy as a point-counting procedure over 400 randomly selected particles. The analytical pulverisation transfers the material into the state in which it would exist after complete mechanical comminution, that is, the end-state of a gravel road trafficked over years.
The two procedures answer two different questions. Which of these two questions should an assessment of resident exposure on a gravel road several years old actually answer?
The peer-reviewed technical literature on the analytics of naturally occurring asbestos in aggregates supports the methodologically second reading: Cavallo (EGU General Assembly 2020, "Aggregates and naturally occurring asbestos: the need of a correct analytical approach", ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..22.3900C) argue explicitly that restricting the analysis to a single grain-size fraction systematically understates the risk assessment of the end material. The full methodological context with source list is available on the reference page: Methodological context on /en/asbestos-standards/.
Italy applies a comparable material threshold to railway ballast (0.1 % by mass, or 1,000 ppm; secondarily documented in Cavallo 2020). A corresponding binding standard for unpaved gravel surfacing in the public realm does not currently exist in the Austrian regulatory framework.
What the methodology means in practice: worked examples with data from the Rechnitz window
Key finding. Across 18 product samples from three model calculations in the Rechnitz window, the TRGS 517 Annex 2 Procedure 2 rescaling yields asbestos mass fractions between 0.2 and 3.6 per cent. The threshold from the German Hazardous Substances Ordinance (GefStoffV Annex II No. 1), the procedure the Montanuniversität Leoben applied on behalf of the authorities, is 0.1 per cent. Every single sample exceeds it: the lowest twofold, the highest thirty-sixfold. The methodology critique is not dataset-specific; it reproduces across three independent datasets.
Model calculation A: seven product samples
Sample
Grain size (mm)
Dust fraction (%)
Chrysotile in dust (%)
Amphibole in dust (%)
Total asbestos (%)
Factor
A
0/2
5.98
22.3
6.9
1.7
17 ×
B
0/2
11.1
4.7
27.9
3.6
36 ×
C
0/16
7.5
10.1
26.8
2.8
28 ×
D
0/32
7.3
4.3
26.6
2.3
23 ×
E
8/11
1.5
6.7
18.5
0.4
4 ×
F
16/22
4.9
11.4
9.4
1.0
10 ×
G
40/70
5.95
6.0
17.1
1.4
14 ×
Mineralogical observation. Model calculation A shows a mixed chrysotile-amphibole profile with amphibole (tremolite/actinolite) dominance in most fractions. Notably, Sample B (0/2) contains 27.9% amphibole but only 4.7% chrysotile in its dust. In the same grain size (Sample A), 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 model location, seven products, ninefold range. The calculated asbestos mass fractions range from 0.4 to 3.6 % (factor 9). All seven samples come from the same model location. The variation is primarily methodological, not geological. The coarser the grain, the less dust the dustability test releases, the lower the result.
2. The implicit assumption. The rescaling [asbestos in dust] × [dust fraction] = [total asbestos] yields the same numerical result as the assumption that the fraction above 100 µm contains 0.0 % asbestos. This is geologically untenable: chrysotile veins and amphibole crystals pervade the rock across a wide range of grain sizes (see Methodological context). When vehicles drive over a gravel road for years, they also crush the coarse fractions, which then release the same high asbestos content.
3. Every value 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 concretises the 0.1 % threshold from GefStoffV Annex II No. 1. Choosing the procedure implicitly applies the benchmark it concretises, unless an alternative threshold is defined. Every sample exceeds it: the lowest fourfold (Sample E, 0.4 %), the highest thirty-sixfold (Sample B, 3.6 %). A methodology that systematically produces lower values than a total-material analysis cannot bring this material below its own threshold.
Model calculation B: six product samples
Sample
Grain size (mm)
Dust fraction (%)
Chrysotile in dust (%)
Amphibole in dust (%)
Total asbestos (%)
Factor
A
0/16
2.31
10.8
13.6
0.6
6 ×
B
0/63
2.55
15.4
16.8
0.8
8 ×
C
2/4
1.05
17.7
14.2
0.3
3 ×
D
11/16
3.71
29.6
14.7
1.6
16 ×
E
22/32
3.52
19.2
14.9
1.2
12 ×
F
63/180
3.93
29.2
~0
1.1
11 ×
Mineralogical observation. Model calculation B shows roughly equal chrysotile and amphibole in most fractions. The coarsest fraction (63/180) contains only chrysotile; prismatic amphibole crystals apparently release less fine dust during coarse-grain processing than fibrous chrysotile veins. All samples above the threshold (3-fold to 16-fold).
Model calculation C: five product samples
Sample
Grain size (mm)
Dust fraction (%)
Chrysotile in dust (%)
Amphibole in dust (%)
Total asbestos (%)
Factor
A
0/16
4.16
36.1
~0
1.5
15 ×
B
0/32
5.17
17.6
~0
0.9
9 ×
C
0/63
6.61
40.4
~0
2.7
27 ×
D
2/4
1.18
52.9
3.2
0.7
7 ×
E
4/6
0.55
34.0
~0
0.2
2 ×
Mineralogical observation. Model calculation C consists almost entirely of chrysotile (amphibole only once, 3.2 % in the 2/4 fraction). The chrysotile concentration in the dust is exceptionally high: 52.9 % in the 2/4 fraction. Yet the rescaling yields only 0.7 % because the dust fraction is low (1.18 %). The 4/6 fraction shows the lowest value in the complex at 0.2 % (still twofold above the threshold). All samples above the threshold (2-fold to 27-fold).
Summary across three model calculations
18 samples from three model calculations in the same geological complex. Every single sample exceeds the 0.1 % threshold. The range spans from 0.2 % (factor 2) to 3.6 % (factor 36). The three model calculations differ mineralogically: Model calculation A shows a mixed chrysotile-amphibole profile, Model calculation B a roughly equal ratio, Model calculation C an almost pure chrysotile profile. This is health-relevant because the cancer risk of amphibole asbestos is epidemiologically higher than that of chrysotile (Hodgson and Darnton 2000 for amosite and crocidolite; for tremolite and actinolite the data is thinner, but the direction is consistent).
Methodology critique: what the Großpetersdorf measurements actually show, and what they do not (as of 26 May 2026)
In a press release from the State of Burgenland on Friday, 22 May 2026, the State Task Force published three measurement values for Großpetersdorf (ORF Burgenland, 22 May 2026). The value of approximately 13,000 fibres/m³ is thereby officially confirmed as a measurement that actually occurred at the site. The Task Force's interpretation ("worst-case measurement under extreme conditions") deserves a separate, sober reading. We do that here.
Chronology
10 February 2026: first measurement, 95 fibres/m³ under moist weather (winter measurement).
7 May 2026: second measurement, approximately 13,000 fibres/m³. The Task Force subsequently frames this value as a "worst-case measurement under extreme conditions". The point in time at which the result became internally available to or was communicated within the Task Force is not publicly documented.
16 May 2026: the Marktgemeinde Großpetersdorf reports elevated asbestos values in air measurements in the Mühlschlag area via an information sheet; ORF Burgenland reports on the same day (burgenland.orf.at/stories/3354408). A specific value is not yet given in the municipal notice at this point.
19 May 2026 (Tuesday): third measurement, 300 fibres/m³ under "real conditions".
22 May 2026 (Friday): State of Burgenland press release with all three values; ORF Burgenland reports the same day at 17:51 local time (burgenland.orf.at/stories/3355418). The highest value is framed as "worst case under extreme conditions"; the two lower ones as representative.
Methodological degrees of freedom
When measurement happens: February moist versus May. Winter moist-cold conditions empirically reduce fibre release substantially (the Task Force itself flagged this as a limitation of the winter measurement series in earlier FAQ statements). The 10 February measurement was conducted under conditions where a low value would be expected as a baseline.
Which conditions count as "real" and which as "extreme": the Task Force defines both categories itself, without a measurement protocol published in advance. Dry May days with traffic are not unusual in Großpetersdorf.
N = 3: three single-day measurements over three months, one sampling location. Too few for a statistically robust characterisation of resident exposure.
Timing of the 19 May measurement: the third measurement took place three days before the State's press release (19 May → 22 May) and three days after the municipal notice (16 May → 19 May). What considerations prompted the additional measurement is not publicly documented.
Who verifies: Task Force-internal measurement, Task Force-internal choice of conditions, Task Force-internal framing of results. No independent replication publicly documented.
Evaluation framework of the chosen reference: The Task Force adopted the TRGS 910 acceptance concentration (10,000 F/m³) as its benchmark and derived its orientation value (1,000 F/m³) as one-tenth of it. TRGS 517 Annex 3 prescribes 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 measurement exceeds the acceptance concentration of 10,000 F/m³, "compliance with the value of 10,000 F/m³ cannot be established" (TRGS 517 Annex 3, paragraph 5). The 7 May reading (approximately 13,000 F/m³) exceeds the acceptance concentration. Under the evaluation framework of the same TRGS from which the Task Force derives its reference value, this measurement series would not pass. The Task Force does not apply this evaluation framework.
What the data show
Three measurements, a range of approximately 137-fold (95 to 13,000), peak value 13× above the Task Force's self-defined orientation value of 1,000 fibres/m³. The 13,000 figure is a real measurement, not an artefact. The label "worst case under extreme conditions" is a framing, not a methodological fact, as long as the measurement protocol for that specific measurement is not publicly available. An equally honest reading of the same data: under at least one condition that actually occurred at the site, the asbestos fibre concentration was 13× above the Task Force's own threshold.
Editorial note: an earlier version of this section listed a fourth chronology event citing a Greenpeace OTS press release of 18 May 2026 and asserted that the 13,000 value was "internally known" on 7 May. Neither claim could be substantiated against a verifiable primary source; both have been removed in the 24 May 2026 revision in favour of the documented timeline above.
Concrete demands
Full measurement protocol per measurement day: sampling location, duration, pump rate, sampled air volume, fibre-counting standard, weather data (temperature, humidity, wind direction and strength), traffic load, any mechanical influence.
Criteria by which 7 May was classified as "extreme" and 19 May as "real".
A statistically meaningful measurement series, N ≥ 10, distributed across summer days under realistic resident conditions, including the distribution of individual values.
Replication of the protocol by a body independent of the Task Force.
Dispersal model by GeoSphere Austria (as of 31 May 2026)
Key finding. GeoSphere Austria modelled asbestos fibre dispersal from all four quarries for the Burgenland government (GRAMM/GRAL model, April 2026, 131 pages). Even under conservative assumptions, modelled annual-mean WHO fibre concentrations reach up to 548 F/m³ and 95th-percentile peaks up to 2,813 F/m³ at the nearest residential receptors (Badersdorf). The critical input parameter (3% asbestos mass content in dust) derives from the TRGS 517 back-calculation, which systematically dilutes the actual asbestos content in the airborne dust fraction. The modelled values are a floor, not a ceiling.
Full analysis: methodology, results, and assessment
The report
Title: "Die Ausbreitung von Asbest, ausgehend von den Steinbrüchen in Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Rumpersdorf und Badersdorf" (The dispersal of asbestos originating from the quarries in Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Rumpersdorf and Badersdorf). GeoSphere Austria (Federal Institute for Geology, Geophysics, Climatology and Meteorology), Department of Environmental Meteorology. Expert author: Mag. Gabriele Rau. Reviewer: Manuel Huber, MSc. Reference 2026/UM/000160, Version 1.1, 29 April 2026, 131 pages. Commissioned by: Office of the Burgenland State Government.
We have seen the document. We do not share it for copyright reasons, but cite from its methodology and results below.
Methodology
The GRAMM/GRAL model system (Öttl 2015a/b, 2022b) is a validated Lagrangian particle dispersion model used by GeoSphere Austria for regulatory immission assessments. The calculation uses a representative meteorological year (2023), with 1,080 wind-field combinations (36 directions, 7 stability classes, 8 speed classes) at 200 m horizontal resolution. Emission sources cover extraction, processing, truck movements (on-site and on access roads), wind erosion from open surfaces and stockpiles. Worst-case approach: for each quarry, the year with the highest extraction volume from the last five years was used (2024 for Pilgersdorf and Bernstein, 2023 for Rumpersdorf and Badersdorf).
The conversion from PM10 immissions to asbestos fibre concentrations uses two parameters: a maximum asbestos mass content of 3% in respirable dust (grain sizes below 0.1 mm) and the mean fibre weights from the four quarries (Pilgersdorf 3.45 × 10⁻⁷ mg, Bernstein 5.57 × 10⁻⁷ mg, Rumpersdorf 1.07 × 10⁻⁷ mg, Badersdorf 3.1 × 10⁻⁷ mg). The fibre weights vary by a factor of 5; Rumpersdorf produces the lightest (and therefore most numerous per unit mass) fibres.
JMW = annual mean. P95 = 95th percentile of hourly values (95% of all hours are at or below this value). All values in WHO fibres/m³. Source: GeoSphere Austria, 2026/UM/000160, Tables 5-1 through 5-4 and Section 7.2.
Without quarry operation (wind erosion from open surfaces only), annual-mean values drop to a fraction: maximum 26 F/m³ at the nearest Badersdorf residents, maximum 23 F/m³ at the Rumpersdorf hunting lodge (Tables 6-1 through 6-4).
What the methodology does well
GRAMM/GRAL is a peer-reviewed, validated standard tool for Austrian regulatory immission assessment.
Receptor points (residential, kindergarten, playground, sports facility, agricultural) are systematically selected and verified via aerial imagery and Street View.
The worst-case extraction volume from five operating years is a methodologically sound approach.
Methodological assessment: why the results are a floor, not a ceiling
1. The TRGS 517 dilution effect in the input parameter. The 3% asbestos mass content comes from the TRGS 517 Annex 2 back-calculation. To understand the chain, one must follow the procedure: a piece of rock is mechanically stressed (standardised drop test). This produces dust. The dust contains a high asbestos fraction because asbestos fibres are preferentially released under mechanical stress. TRGS 517 analyses the asbestos content in this dust, but then back-calculates the result to the total sample mass (dust + intact rock). Because the dust fraction of the total sample is only a few per cent, a high asbestos content in the dust is diluted to a low overall value.
A concrete example from the model calculations on this page: in model calculation C, the chrysotile share in the fine dust of the 2/4 mm fraction is 52.9%. The dust yield of the total sample is 1.18%. The TRGS 517 back-calculation gives: 52.9% × 1.18% = 0.7%. The dilution factor is 76.
The dispersal model then uses 3% as the asbestos content in dust. But this 3% is not a directly measured dust value; it is the result of exactly this back-calculation: rock → dust with high asbestos content → back-calculation to rock with low asbestos content → this low value is then carried forward as the asbestos content in dust. The actual asbestos content in the dust fraction itself is, as the worked example shows, a multiple higher. The modelled fibre concentrations at receptor points are therefore systematically understated. The magnitude of the effect requires a sensitivity analysis that the report does not contain.
2. No sensitivity analysis. The asbestos mass content (3%) and the mean fibre weights (factor-of-5 range across the four quarries) are used as single values. What effect a doubling or halving of these parameters would have on receptor values is not investigated. In a linear model, the results scale directly with the input parameters.
3. No deposition, no accumulation, no resuspension. The model calculates instantaneous airborne concentration from direct quarry emissions. It does not capture: fibres depositing on surfaces (roads, gardens, roofs, playgrounds); material accumulating over 30+ years of operation; resuspension by wind, traffic, or human activity. This secondary reservoir is an independent exposure pathway, particularly for children at ground level.
4. Representative rather than adverse meteorological year. 2023 was selected as the representative year, not as a meteorologically adverse one. A year with unusually dry spring conditions and sustained winds from the quarry toward the settlement would produce higher values. Dust emission from unpaved surfaces scales nonlinearly (approximately with the cube) of wind speed.
Overall picture. The report is a technically sound first-order estimate using the right tool and carefully chosen receptor points. It answers the question "What is the direct fibre concentration from quarry operations under conservative assumptions?" The answer is: already substantial under these assumptions. Each of the methodological limitations listed above pushes in the same direction: the actual exposure is, with high probability, above the tabulated values.
TL;DR. Material from the four quarries was sold over three decades as grit, chippings, gravel, winter grit, and milled material, estimated at around 50 Mt since 1990. Anyone living in Burgenland, Styria, Lower Austria, Vienna or Western Hungary should check region, period, visual cues, and exposure location.
Whether you could be affected depends not primarily on where you live but on the origin of your gravel, chippings or rolled aggregate. The following questions help with an initial assessment.
1. Region and delivery chain
Was material sourced from southern Burgenland at any point in the last roughly 35 years? This obviously applies to municipalities and private individuals in Burgenland, Lower Austria and Styria — but because of the long distribution chains, also to recipients further afield. Ask your municipality, building contractor, supplier or — for older deliveries — check the purchase contract for origin and delivery year.
2. Period and use
Material from these quarries was sold in large volumes from 1990 onwards, with peaks in the 2000s and 2010s. Typical uses: driveways, garden paths, winter road grit, railway ballast, playgrounds, school paths, car parks, landscaping.
3. Visual cues
Serpentinite is often greenish or greenish-white mottled, sometimes with a silky sheen. Fresh fracture surfaces can look fibrous and splintery. Important: visual identification is not reliable. Asbestos-free serpentinite also exists, and other dark-green rocks such as gabbro or basalt are hard to distinguish by eye alone. The eye alone is not enough — a defensible statement requires laboratory analysis.
4. Location and exposure
The more sensitive the use (children, schools, hospitals) and the more intense the mechanical wear (traffic, wind, dry conditions), the more urgent the clarification. A rarely-used garden path that can be covered is not the same as a kindergarten playground.
If you answer multiple points with yes, sampling by an accredited laboratory is the sensible next step.
What to do if you suspect contamination — How to act & what not to do
What to do if you suspect contamination
The following guidance applies from the moment you suspect your gravel might come from one of the four affected quarries — regardless of whether the suspicion is confirmed.
What to do
Photograph and document. Photos of the area, wide and close-up. Record date, location, approximate area and — if known — supplier and delivery year.
Inform the relevant body. For public areas (playgrounds, school routes, municipal roads) contact the municipality or school operator. For hospitals or care facilities, contact the operator. For private property, where applicable, contact the seller or landlord who arranged the delivery.
Limit use of the area until the situation is clarified. Especially for sensitive uses and during dry, windy conditions.
Bring in professionals. A structured material sample and, where appropriate, an indoor-air measurement according to VDI 3492 belong in the hands of an accredited laboratory or a qualified expert assessor.
What not to do under any circumstances
Do not crush. No hammering, breaking or sieving.
Do not dry-sweep or use a leaf blower. Both aerosolise fibres over large areas.
Do not vacuum with household vacuum cleaners. Household filters do not retain inhalable fibres.
Do not take samples yourself. Every manual sampling attempt risks releasing fibres.
Do not track material into the house. No material on shoes from the driveway into interior rooms.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Frequently asked questions
After its winter measurement series, the task force sees "no acute danger." Greenpeace and toxicologist Dr. Norbert Weis consider winter measurements of limited value. Undisputed: asbestos fibres are carcinogenic, related diseases emerge 20 to 50 years after first inhalation, and there is no scientifically established threshold below which asbestos is safe. The summer measurement series will be decisive. More at Fibres & risk.
The contaminated material originates from the four closed quarries, sold in some cases since the 1990s, often simply as "chippings" or "rolled aggregate." Visually it is serpentinite: greenish-white mottled, with silky, fibrous fracture surfaces, often crumbly. Reliable identification by eye alone is not possible. If you know your gravel came from southern Burgenland, or you find greenish-white fibrous stones: have a material sample taken. More at Am I affected?.
First rule: no panic, but act. Do not let the child crush the stones, put them in their mouth or take them home. Inform the responsible body, municipality, kindergarten operator, school authority, and request information about the material's origin and a commitment to sampling. Until the situation is clarified, limiting use of the area is sensible, especially in dry and windy conditions. More at What to do if you suspect contamination.
Yes, potentially. Greenpeace has already confirmed asbestos-containing material in Lower Austria, Styria, at the Mogersdorf rest stop on the S7 motorway and in the Hungarian towns of Szombathely and Bozsok. What matters is not your residence but the origin of the specific material. More at Find locations.
The state task force recommends exactly that. We consider this recommendation technically incomplete. Asbestos-containing material is classified as hazardous waste under the Austrian waste-catalogue regulation. With the 2025 GKV amendment, demolition and asbestos-remediation work may furthermore be carried out only by authorised specialist firms (§ 26 GKV). Private individuals cannot be authorised. Handling requires appropriate respiratory protection and protective clothing per Section 4 GKV; transport requires sealed packaging with asbestos labelling (§ 22a para. 2 sub-para. 3 GKV; SV 168 ADR); and disposal must be via a collector authorised under § 24a AWG 2002. A quarry is not a licensed asbestos disposal facility. We sent an open letter to Prof. Hutter (MedUni Vienna) on 26 April 2026 and are awaiting a response. More at Open letter to Prof. Hutter.
The full first measurement series (66 measurement points, published on 25 March 2026) stayed below the task force's self-chosen threshold of 1,000 fibres/m³ at every location. At 58 points the value was below 400 fibres/m³; at eight locations the mean lay between 540 and 830 fibres/m³, predominantly close to contaminated material under mechanical wear. Important: this threshold is not legally binding. There is no statutory limit for asbestos fibres in outdoor air. All measurements were taken under cold, damp winter conditions that bind fibres to the ground. By contrast, official measurements in the Hungarian residential area of Oladi-plató in Szombathely on gravel roads with material from the same quarries showed values between 34,800 and 292,000 F/m³ under dry conditions. Same material, different weather, different order of magnitude: that is why the summer measurement series in Austria will be decisive. More at Fibres & risk.
Yes. On 22 April 2026, we had two of our own material samples analysed by the DAkkS-accredited testing laboratory CRB Analyse Service GmbH. Finding 1: gravel of a children's playground path in Kotezicken, positive for actinolite (amphibole asbestos), mass class 2 (1 to 5 per cent). Finding 2: active loading ramp of a currently-not-closed quarry in the same geological complex as the four officially closed quarries (southern Burgenland Rechnitzer Window; location anonymised for legal reasons; BH Oberpullendorf and BMASGPK informed in writing; external verification pending), positive for chrysotile, mass class 4 (20 to 50 per cent). Both samples were analysed per VDI 3866 Sheet 5:2017-06 by SEM-EDX. The full test report and our contextualisation are at Own sampling.
Our private letter of 15 April 2026 went unanswered. On 26 April 2026 we followed up with an open letter, adding four specific questions, on § 26 GKV, practical disposal, the full chain and the 1,000 fibres/m³ guideline. The response will be published here in full once it arrives, or its absence documented. More at Open letter to Prof. Hutter.
Legally the situation is a "grey zone": placing asbestos-containing materials on the market has been banned since 1990, but only where fibres were added deliberately. For naturally-occurring asbestos in rock, no clear rule exists. That said, things are moving: authorities have already ordered removal at Oberwart Hospital, ÖBB and ASFINAG have cleared material as a precaution. For private cases, the outcome depends on the purchase contract, tenancy agreement and evidentiary situation. In disputed cases we recommend a documented sampling by an independent third party.
Bound asbestos in solid, intact rock is less dangerous on contact than free fibres. The risk comes from abrasion: car tyres, shovelling, dry sweeping, leaf blowers, children hitting stones together, boccia play on contaminated ground, or strong wind during dry weather. Important to know: according to Prof. Weiszburg (ELTE Budapest), part of the material has undergone a geological process that has weakened the rock mechanically. It crumbles under wear more easily than its appearance suggests. A brief walk over a wet, undisturbed surface is a smaller risk than a heavily-used, dry gravel car park or a boccia court with asbestos-containing filling. More at Fibres & risk.
Commissioned by the district authorities of Oberwart and Oberpullendorf, the Montanuniversität Leoben (Chair of Geology and Economic Geology, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Frank Melcher) analysed 67 rock samples from the four closed quarries and 46 product samples. The methodology combines SEM-EDX, laser Raman spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction as well as a quantitative fibre count under TRGS 517. The Land Burgenland press release and the ORF Burgenland report do not name the executing entities (sample preparation, XRD lab, fibre-counting lab) by name. The opinion runs to roughly 1,200 pages and was transmitted to the authorities on 8 May 2026. The concrete results are not public pending conclusion of the proceedings. On the basis of the opinion, the district authorities together with the competent federal ministries will decide on the future of the operations. More at Montanuni expert opinion.
Yes. In the late 1970s, a study commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection documented in Rechnitz: 10 per cent of 300 examined Rechnitz residents had asbestos-typical pleural plaques in the pleura, in the control group of 600 people from other Burgenland municipalities none. The University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU) measured 3,350 asbestos fibres/m³ in the outdoor air on 15 April 1979. According to the research report, the sources were the natural weathering of the substrate (Rechnitzer Fenster, serpentinite) and the roads gravelled with asbestos-containing rock. The study was not translated into regulatory action at the time. More at Rechnitz study 1979.
TL;DR. Serpentinite is a metamorphic rock quarried in the southern Burgenland sites. Asbestos minerals are intergrown with the main mineral antigorite. The asbestos problem in Burgenland is not new, it goes back over 100 years (full backstory and the Rechnitz 1979 study in the blog).
What is serpentinite, and why does it contain asbestos?
The rock
Serpentinite is a hydrated ultramafic rock, in plain terms: former upper-mantle rock (rich in magnesium and iron, poor in silicon) that has reacted with water over geological timescales. The original minerals, olivine and pyroxene, are transformed into three main serpentine phases: lizardite, antigorite and chrysotile. Chrysotile is the habit that grows as fibres, and that fibrous form is what industry historically marketed as "white asbestos."
The regional geology
The four quarries all sit within the geological context of the so-called Rechnitzer Fenster. In tectonics, a "window" (Fenster) is an area where erosion has exposed deeper rock units that are elsewhere covered by younger layers. The Rechnitzer Fenster exposes parts of the so-called Penninic units, remnants of a former oceanic basin that was closed roughly 140 million years ago during the formation of the Alps. Ultramafic rocks and their hydrated derivatives, serpentinites, are typical components of such oceanic-basin relics.
Why the asbestos content varies
The asbestos content of serpentinite is not uniform. It depends on how completely the hydration proceeded, the temperatures and pressures under which it occurred, and whether subsequent tectonic deformation produced additional shear zones where asbestos fibres preferentially grew. This is why samples from the same product set can yield 5 per cent asbestos in one measurement and 50 per cent in the next. Amphibole asbestos phases such as actinolite and tremolite form secondarily in contact zones. Their distribution is even more heterogeneous.
What this means in practice
That asbestos-containing rock exists in this region is geologically expected. That it was extracted and sold as gravel, chippings and construction sand for three decades is a political-regulatory question, not a geological surprise.
Direct mineralogical confirmation comes from geologist Friedrich Koller of the University of Vienna, quoted by 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, says the expert (translated; Klatzer/Winterer, Falter 13/2026).
Timeline 2025/2026: the key stages
Summer 2025: Bergerhoff measurements at the Postmann quarry show elevated values; the results reach the authorities.
31 December 2025: The occupational asbestos limit drops from 100,000 to 10,000 fibres/m³ (2025 amendment).
2 January 2026: The four quarries Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Postmann (Rumpersdorf) and Badersdorf are sealed by the authorities.
January and February 2026: Greenpeace begins its own sampling; the state task force starts its first air measurements.
March 2026: Falter publishes the 30-year backstory (13/2026); Greenpeace extends sampling to Lower Austria, Styria and Hungary.
April 2026: Up to 292,000 fibres/m³ are measured in Szombathely, Hungary declares a health emergency; the operators found the „ARGE Naturgestein". (→ Situation in Hungary)
4 May 2026: Own DAkkS finding: actinolite on a playground in Kotezicken, chrysotile (mass class 4) on the loading ramp of a non-sealed quarry. (→ Our own findings)
11 and 12 May 2026: Two parliamentary answers (4053 and 4055/AB-BR/2026) with a quarry-specific asbestos-content table.
16 and 21 May 2026: Großpetersdorf reports elevated values; the task force publishes three readings. (→ Criticism & letters)
26 May 2026: Task force lead Hutter casts doubt on origin and readings in Falter. (→ Fact check)
Parliamentary answer 4053/AB-BR/2026 (Schumann, BMASGPK, 11 May 2026) — employment in quarries, GKV-Novelle 31.12.2025, further reduction 21.12.2029, first federal information 13.1.2026, Arbeitsinspektorat status, Produktsicherheitsgesetz sampling. (parlament.gv.at)
Parliamentary answer 4055/AB-BR/2026 (Totschnig, BMLUK, 12 May 2026) — quarry-specific asbestos contents (Pilgersdorf, Bernstein, Postmann/KG Glashütten bei Schlaining, Badersdorf), REACH Annex V exemption, EU extension of REACH Annex XVII, competence delimitation Chemikaliengesetz vs. MinroG. (parlament.gv.at)
Information sheet of the Marktgemeinde Großpetersdorf, "Erhöhte Asbestwerte bei Messungen im Bereich Straßen Mühlschlag" (May 2026), contact post@grosspetersdorf.bgld.gv.at. Available to the editorial team as a photograph; official confirmation by the municipality recommended.
Austrian Administrative Court decision, 1999, on the Tauchental asphalt mixing plant.
Umweltsenat, appeal decision in the UVP procedure Pilgersdorf (2011) — "only the protection of the landscape image was legally relevant" (documented in Falter 13/2026).
Federal minister recall order, 2008, for 25-kg bags of winter road grit from Postmann (postally Rumpersdorf).
BMU letter to BH Oberwart of 10 May 1995 on the asbestos content at the Bernstein quarry (documented in Falter 13/2026).
Workplace Limits Regulation 2025 (BGBl. II 339/2025), transposition of EU Directive 2023/2668, in particular § 22a, § 26, § 27 (Section 4 on asbestos).
US EPA, study on Naturally Occurring Asbestos in El Dorado Hills, California: activity-based fibre concentrations up to 43 times reference values. archive.epa.gov/region9/toxic/web
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), conclusion on El Dorado Hills (2005).
ZFE Graz (29 September 1994) and ÖSBS counter-report (1995) — early measurements at the Bernstein quarry (reconstructed from Falter 13/2026).
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Frank Melcher (Chair of Geology and Economic Geology, Montanuniversität Leoben; member of the Burgenland Taskforce Vorsorgeabklärung Luftqualität), public statements 7/8 May 2026 on methodology and reach of the expert opinion (ORF Burgenland, Land Burgenland press release).
Historical sources (1890–1943)
Historical sources (1890–1943)
Eugen Luschin Ritter von Ebengreuth, "Asbest, dessen Vorkommen und Verarbeitung in Österreich-Ungarn", Berg- und hüttenmännisches Jahrbuch der K.K. Bergakademien zu Přibram und Leoben und der Königl.-Ungar. Bergakademie zu Schemnitz, Band 38 (1890), pp. 87–128. Inventory of the asbestos deposits then known in Austria-Hungary; Rechnitz / Bernstein not yet included.
C. Doelter, "Die Asbest- und Talklagerstätten in Rechnitz (Burgenland)", Wien 1922 (cited from Berichte der GBA Band 73).
O. Ampferer, "Geologisches Gutachten über das Asbestvorkommen der AMIANT-Aktiengesellschaft bei Rechnitz im Burgenland", Wien 1926.
H. Rosenberg, "Das Mikro-Asbestvorkommen in Rechnitz im Burgenland (Österreich)", Berg- und Hüttenmännisches Jahrbuch Vol. 76 (1928), Issue 2, pp. 55–57; and "Der burgenländische Mikro-Asbest" (1928). Sales literature of the Mikro-Asbest firm Bernfeld & Rosenberg, Vienna; documents an asbestos content averaging more than 50 % and marketing as a construction and road-construction filler.
Burgenland-Atlas 1941, Fritz Bodo / Arthur Winkler-Hermaden, Österreichischer Landesverlag Wien (printed with the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NS research context): Karte 3 "Rechnitz. Asbestproduktion (1926–36) und Asbestausfuhr (1931–36)". David Rumsey Map Collection, List No 14534.029.
H. Eggenberger, "Bericht über die Nachforschungen nach Asbestlagerstätten in Österreich durch die Deutsche Asbestzement-A.G. in Berlin-Rudow und die Eternit-Werke Ludwig Hatschek in Vöcklabruck" (1938).
H. Leitmeier, "Asbest im Serpentinstock von Bernstein im ehemaligen Burgenland" / "Bericht über das Asbestvorkommen von Bernstein" (1942/43); H. P. Cornelius, "Über Vorkommen von Asbest in den Donau- und Alpengauen" (1943).
Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Band 73 (Schedl/Mauracher/Rabeder): overall bibliography Bergbau-/Haldenkataster, Burgenland section; bibliographic reference for all the above historical sources.
Historical precedent
Historical precedent
Research report "Asbestbelastung in Rechnitz" by the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU) (early 1980s), commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection. Documented in: Matthias Winterer, "Asbest: Die Lungenkranken von Rechnitz", Falter-Maily 10 April 2026. falter.at/maily/20260410/die-lungenkranken-von-rechnitz
Kontroll.hu, interview with Mayor András Nemény, early May 2026 (transmitted via APA, picked up by ORF, SN.at, oe24, Heute and others).
ARGE Naturgestein
ARGE Naturgestein
OTS press releases, April 2026; press conference at the Pilgersdorf quarry, 27 April 2026.
Own correspondence and investigations
Own correspondence and investigations
Dr. Maximilian Mandl, letters to Prof. Hans-Peter Hutter (MedUni Vienna), 15 April 2026 (private) and 26 April 2026 (open letter). Full texts in the section above.
ORF Burgenland, "Asbest: Messwerte für Großpetersdorf veröffentlicht", 22 May 2026, burgenland.orf.at/stories/3355418. Three measurements 10.2./7.5./19.5.2026.
Dr. Maximilian Mandl, open letter to Prof. Martin Kirschbaum (KiProCon / visiting lecturer at RWTH Aachen), 26 April 2026. Full text in the section above.
Own sampling by Ungiftig FlexCo, 22 April 2026, analysed by CRB Analyse Service GmbH (DAkkS-accredited, D-PL-19161-01-00), test report no. 26-06249. Method: SEM-EDX per VDI 3866 Sheet 5:2017-06. Download test report (PDF).
Supply-chain research from Styria (February to May 2026): written response correspondence from, among others, Bauhaus, Holding Graz, ALAS Baustoff Holding, Schwarzl, Scherf GmbH, Kanzelsteinbruch Gratkorn, Tieber, Holding Graz Straßenbahn (Appel quarry), ÖBB Styria, Werke Weizklamm/Poingl/Naintsch/Völlegg/St. Jakob, Eibisberger/Strobl, Kirchengast, Hofer and McDonald's Styria. Citizen initiative, transmitted to the editorial team with permission for use (sender anonymised).
For questions about sources, specific measurement results or how to contextualise individual reports: servus@ungiftig.at
Questions, tips, new finds?
Write to us or call. We check, respond, and update this page when you have material on a so-far undocumented site.
Send a message
We respond within one business day.
Just call
Direct line: we discuss your situation or take down what you've found.