Stoisits: Complaints of neighbours about the limestone quarry in Hohenems

Complaints of neighbours about the limestone quarry in Hohenems - Responsibility of different authorities for health risk from a crushing plant

ORF-Series "Bürgeranwalt" (“Advocate for People”) – Broadcast of June 28th, 2008

Complaints of residents of adjoining properties about the adverse effects of a limestone quarry in the Borough of Hohenems in Vorarlberg were at the focus of a lively discussion during the ORF broadcast on 28 June 2008. The replacement of the old crushing plant with a new one and its additional use for so-called building rubble were the reason for the involvement of the Office of the Ombudsperson.

In the absence of a representative of the Mining Authority, two representatives of the residents of adjoining properties, representatives of the company and the official of the Provincial Government of Vorarlberg, who is responsible for waste management, discussed with Ombudsperson Stoisits in the ORF studio questions concerning the legal situation and the uncertainty in the implementation. Whilst the Waste Management Authority is able to produce a valid permit for the new crushing plant to process rubble, with conditions imposed for protection against noise, the Mining Authority relies on an earlier permit for the processing of quarried material for the former crushing plant for its responsibility towards the adjoining residents and the Office of the Ombudsperson. With reference to the provisions of the Mineral Raw Materials Act the Mining Authority was of the opinion, that replacement of the plant did and does not require a special permit, as there would be no additional emissions neither qualitatively nor quantitatively.

The enraged citizens felt "cheated and lied to" by the company and the authority and demanded a stop to the quarrying activities. The company representatives referred to their official permits and also to the fact that the new crushing plant was operated to the same level as the old one and there would be no additional adverse effects.

Ombudsperson Stoisits states that as yet the Mining Authority had not produced a permit for the old crushing plant and its actual existence was questionable at present. She is also critical about the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act in force. In the present case a procedure pursuant to this Act had not been possible due to the high threshold values. According to a recent decision of the European instances in proceedings for breach of contract, a requirement for action on the part of the Austrian legislature exists. In particular, the prevailing threshold values in Austria for applicability of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act are set too high. Although amendment of this Act is imminent, it would be too late for the present case. In terms of noise pollution it would also be of secondary interest to the affected residents of adjacent properties that the crushing plant has to be granted permission pursuant to the Mining and Waste Management Regulations, as there would be another 100,000 tons of rubble per year in addition to the mineral raw materials processed in the plant at present.

Even after due consideration of the economic interests, for Ombudsperson Stoisits the health of the residents of adjacent properties must always be at the focus of attention – both for the legislature and for the executive authorities.