Mr. Chairman. Senator Shelby, and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Brenda Lindell. I have been a resident of Anniston, Alabama, for more than 19 years. I am a founding member of Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration, or Families.... I have studied and been involved with the issue of chemical weapons for more than 9 years. During this time, I have learned a lot about issues I never thought I would face while raising our three children in Anniston.

The citizens of the surrounding area of Anniston Army Depot (AAD), where the chemical weapons are stored, had no say into how the chemical weapons were to be destroyed. Until 1991 when the Army de-classified the stockpile, many citizens were unaware that chemical weapons were even stored at AAD. By that time PMCD (Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization) had decided to use on-site incineration as the method to destroy the chemical weapons. Instead of seeking input from the community, the Army made a decision, then presented it to us as a done deal.

Coming from the perspective of a concerned citizen in Alabama, hearings are held merely as a formality. Input from citizens does not make a difference. For example, in Utah there was one public hearing held for all the sites to be permitted to bum PCBs in the incinerator. The EPA told us a hearing would be in Anniston after the permit was issued, not before. Raising concerns after the fact doesn't seem to have any effect.

So if outside input doesn't have any effect, what about internal input from people who work on the project but have concerns? There have been 3 high level, managerial whistleblowers that have come out of the Tooele facility. They are: Steve Jones, chief of safety operations, Trina Allen, chief of hazardous wastes operations, and Gary Harris, chief permit coordinator. In addition, Gary Millar, the EG&G plant manager, wrote a lengthy letter voicing his concerns about the safety of the facility, citing it as an accident waiting to happen. All have stated that the facility is not safe, and have voiced numerous safety concerns. Unfortunately, the Tooele facility continues to operate.

So it would appear that external and internal forces can't really do anything to change how these thousands of tons of chemical weapons are disposed. This almost juggernaut approach is seen in the permitting process itself. Instead of a pass/fail test like we all had in school, incinerators are allowed to attempt trial bums repeatedly until they are successful. Then they are permitted to bum for years on this one-time trial result. No chemical weapons incinerator has ever successfully passed a PCB trial bum. The Utah incinerator has been plagued by technical problems, chronic malfunctions, and repeated shut downs. This is typical of incineration performance nationally.

The Anniston area is a community that is already heavily contaminated with PCBs due to Monsanto illegally dumping the chemical for decades. Many citizens are already burdened with PCBs. Lead and mercury also are a contamination problem there. Recently, we learned the agents to be burned are at least twice as toxic as originally believed.

Taken together this poses severe problems for the more than 75,000 people who live in the Immediate Response Zone.

Even if everything goes as promised with the incinerator, we will be exposed to many toxins and chemical agents being emitted from the incinerator for around 4 years. According to the data supplied by PMCD, there are more than 100 toxins that are listed in the Environmental Impact statement. However, information obtained by the Chemical Weapons Working Group indicates that the incineration process in Anniston will take longer than the Army has told us--probably 3 times as long. The implications of this prolonged exposure to these toxins are a major health concern.

The incinerator operates using large volumes of heat and air flowing through it. If there is ever an accident, there is nothing that can be done to stop the agent from reaching the community. The alarms will sound when agent leaves the stack. There will not enough time for people to evacuate and there will be chaos and panic. The community will have less than 8 minutes to respond. If an accident occurs during rush hour, people will not have time to get to an enclosed structure. Maybe this is why PMCD recently changed their standard to "no deaths" instead of "no exposure".

The best way to protect the community is to use a technology that has no smokestack. Incineration uses high temperature/high pressure. Neutralization uses low temperature/low pressure. Neutralization allows for the operator to be able to make a test-release. An incinerator does not. Neutralization allows for analysis of effluents each step of the way, before these effluents are released into the environment. Neutralization is a controllable technology. Incineration is not. By being controllable, neutralization allows for the lowest potential of releasing toxins into the environment.

As someone living in the IRZ in Anniston, my family and I have the most at stake in the federal government's decision about how these chemical weapons are destroyed. I urge you to consider the health and safety needs of our community. But this should be done at more than my urging. The federal government has a statutory duty to provide "maximum protection". This subcommittee should make sure that duty is met. I believe only by a safer method of destruction than incineration can this be accomplished.

Fortunately we have time if we act now. All reports to date by SBCCOM (Soldier, Biological, Chemical Command) show safe storage capabilities through the year 2043. This allows time for implementation of a safer technology. It does not mean you have to start over from scratch. The incinerator can be retrofitted. The safety of the community outweighs everything.

Thank you.

Brenda Lindell
Anniston, Alabama