The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture

 

War Profiteers Main Index

White Phosphorus in Gaza

White Phosphorus in Lebanon

White Phosphorus in Iraq

 

 

White Phosphorus Weapons: FOIA Requests

 

Background

FOIA Documents

Related Documents

Photo Credits

 

Background

 

This page documents the course of FOIA requests by the website owner with regards to information on the production, export and the military use of so-called “incendiary weapons” containing white phosphorus by the U.S. military in Iraq and Israeli forces in the South of Lebanon and in Gaza, Palestine.

 

The individual FOIA requests were submitted to the U.S. State Department, to the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army Chemical Weapons Arsenal at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, which apparently is the sole production facility for white phosphorus weapons within the United States. The FOIA requests were filed in March of 2009.

White phosphorus shell explodes over Gaza city

 

The White Phosphorus Trilogy:

 

White Phosphorus Weapons in Iraq

White Phosphorus Weapons in Lebanon

White Phosphorus Weapons in Gaza

 

FOIA Documents

 

August 2nd, 2010 - Initial Denial Letter re Documents Concerning Israel

Letter by U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

April 1st, 2010 - Use of Incendiary Weapons/Smoke Generating Projectiles in Iraq

Letter by the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters

 

September 22nd, 2009 - Production, Processing & Storage Records of White Phosphorus Weapons

Letter & Report by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command & U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

July 13th, 2009 - DODIC Expenditure Report on WP Weapons in Iraq (Ground Assets)

Letter & Report by the U.S. Marine Corps System Command

 

April 14th, 2009 - Expenditure Query Results on WP Weapons in Iraq

Letter & Memorandum by U.S. Air Force Central

 

FOIA Correspondence in Reversed Chronological Order

 

August 2nd, 2010 - Initial Denial Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

May 11th, 2010 - 3rd Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

May 9th, 2010 - 2nd Letter to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

April 30th, 2010 - 2nd Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

April 30th, 2010 - Letter to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

April 29th, 2010 - Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

April 1st, 2010 - Letter from the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters

November 16th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

October 13th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

September 28th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

September 22nd, 2009 - Letter by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

September 16th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

September 15th, 2009 - 4th Reply by the U.S. State Department

September 15th, 2009 - 4th Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Air Force Central

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. State Department/Office of Information Programs and Services

September 14th, 2009 - Letter for U.S. Army Central

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

July 29th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Army/FOIA Office

July 14th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps

July 13th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps System Command

July 8th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps

July 7th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. State Department

June 10th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy

May 14th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

May 12th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. State Department

May 7th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Army/LAAP

May 6th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Army

May 3rd, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Air Force

May 1st, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy

April 26th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

April 14th, 2009 - Letter and Memorandum by U.S. Air Forces Central

April 7th, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

March 31st, 2009 - Confirmation Letter by U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

March 30th, 2009 - Reply by U.S. Air Force Central

March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central (LAAP)

March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force Central

March 27th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. State Department

March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Air Force, Headquarters

March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

March 23rd, 2009 - FOIA Request to Chief of U.S. Naval Operations

March 23rd, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Navy Personnel Command

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Navy Personnel Command

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force Headquarters

March 20th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Central Command

March 20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Central Command

March 20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

March 19th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. State Department

 

 

August 2nd, 2010 - Initial Denial Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

[…] Dear Mr. Ottmann:

 

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, March 20, 2009, in which you requested a copy of documents relating to white phosphorus projectiles. Your request was originally directed to the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff Arkansas, which referred your request to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command on April 2, 2009, for a response to you on documents concerning Israel.

 

After reviewing the documents considered for release, it was determined that the document(s) be withheld pursuant to the FOIA, 5 United States Code Section 552 (b) (3), Exemption 3, and 10 United States Code Section 130c, because this information was provided by, made available by, or produced in cooperation with a foreign government and is considered exempt from disclosure. This statue allows withholding information provided by foreign governments under certain circumstances. In this case, the foreign government is withholding the information from public disclosure and has denied the request to release the documents. Therefore, we find that the document(s) concerning Israel qualify under Title 10 United States Code 130c and FOIA, 5 United States Code Section 552(b) (3), Exemption 3, and are hereby withheld. In addition, after a search for records relating to the subject matter for Iraq, no records were found responsive to your request.

 

This decision is considered a denial of your FOIA request for information relating to the documents concerning Israel. General Ann E. Dunwoody, Commanding General, US. Army Materiel Command, is the Initial Denial Authority (IDA) and by position I am the delegated IDA. You may appeal this denial of release to the Secretary of the Army. […]

 

Vincent J. Paggioli

Command Counsel

 

 

May 11th, 2010 - 3rd Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

Mr. Ottomann [sic],

 

Below is the link to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The link below will allow you to submit your request electronically to NARA. The records you requested are not affiliated with the US Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC). Since the establishment has closed, the records may have been placed at NARA and they will provide you with some guidance. I hope this will assist you in fulfilling your request.

 

Chris Green

FOIA Officer

U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

 

May 9th, 2010 - 2nd Letter to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

Dear Ms. Green,

 

thank you for your last e-mail from April 30th, 2010.

 

I am hereby forwarding to you an electronic copy of my original FOIA request for records on white phosphorus projectiles from the Lousiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP). As you can see, I did send this request to the U.S. Army Central FOIA office. Until today, I have not received any response from the U.S. Army.

 

Judging from your explanation in the first letter from April 30, your office might be well suited to respond to this particular FOIA request as well.

 

As I have not heard anything from the U.S. Army's central office and due to the fact that the LAAP has ceased to operate apparently in 1996, I do not see any other alternative as to forward this request to you.

 

In any case, should your office not be the appropriate agency to reply to this request, I would very much appreciate, if you could give me any advice, as to which agency might be the correct one to forward this request to.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Martin Ottmann

 

 

April 30th, 2010 - 2nd Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

Thank you for your speedy response. As for the similar FOIA request from March 27, 2009, it has not be referred to USASAC for action.

 

Chris Green

FOIA Officer

U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

 

April 30th, 2010 - Letter to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

Dear Ms. Green,

 

thank you very much for your e-mail.

 

I am indeed still interested in the documents that I had requested in 2009 from the FOIA office at Pine Bluff. In fact, this week I planned to send your colleagues, with whom I had been in contact earlier, an e-mail asking if I might expect soon an answer to my last request from last fall.

 

Your letter with the clarification with regards to the delay is therefore very appreciated.

 

In this regard I would like to ask you if you are at the same time processing my similar FOIA request from March 27th, 2009 with regards to white phosphorus projectiles that had been produced by the now defunct Lousiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP)? I had sent this request to the U.S. Army Central FOIA office, but I never received any reply. Has this request been forwarded to you?

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Martin Ottmann

 

 

April 29th, 2010 - Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

Mr. Ottmann,

 

1. Reference your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, March 20, 2009, to the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for the following records:

 

“Records of the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between 1990 and the date of this letter”

 

2. Your request was received by the US Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC) for a response to documents concerning Israel. I apologize for the delay of this response, which was caused by the need to consult with another department component and government agency, and the replacement/retirement of the FOIA Officer who initially received your request for action. We are currently processing your request and want to confirm your continued interest in the records you requested. Please contact me via e-mail of your current interest.

 

Ms. Christella Green

FOIA Officer

U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

 

 

April 1st, 2010 - Letter from the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters

 

Dear Mr. Ottman:

 

This follows-up my July 14, 2009, interim response to your March 23, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by which you seek to obtain copies of documents reflecting the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating prqjectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and March 23, 2009. As you were apprised, your FOIA request was transferred from the Marine Corps Systems Command to this Headquarters to coordinate a search of files maintained by the Aviation Department for responsive documents as they pertain to aviation assets.

 

Please be advised that knowIedgeable personnel within the Aviation Department have apprised that they cannot provide the requested data. While records are maintained with regard to the expenditure of white phosphorus in terms of date, quantity, purpose (i-e.., combat, training, testing), and the military unit expending it, no records are maintained regarding the location where the ordnance was expended (i..e., Iraq). In order to determine where white phosphorus ordnance was expended, knowledgeable personnel would have to conduct exhaustive and time-consuming research outside of USMC existing record systems and create a new record tailored to your FOIA request. However, FOIA law and regulation do not require the government to create a record simply to respond to a FOIA request [.]

 

In view of the above, you may consider this an adverse determination that may be appealed to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Judge Advocate General (Code 14), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066. Your appeal, if any, must be postmarked within 60 calendar days from the date of this letter to be considered and a copy of your initial letter and this letter should be attached. Additionally, your appeal correspondence should include a written statement indicating why you believe your appeal should be granted. Both your appeal and its envelope and your correspondence should bear the notation "Freedom of Infomation Act Appeal."

 

Teresa D. Ross

Head, FOIA/PA Section (ARSF)

Security Programs & Info Mgmt Br

Administration & Resource Mgmt Div

By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps

 

 

November 16th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

 

[…] Dear Ms Barrows,

 

in your last letter from October 13th, 2009, you invited me to send you an e-mail, in case I should have any question with regards to my FOIA request(s).

 

As you know, I have submitted a FOIA request with regards to records from the Pine Bluff arsenal. Around the same time, when I initially filed this request, I also requested from the U.S. Army records with regards to white phosphorus projectiles from the so-called “Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant” (LAAP). I am aware that this installation does not exist anymore, but I suppose that its records have been moved to another U.S. Army installation.

 

Could you point out to me, which U.S. Army installation holds the records of the LAAP and which FOIA Office within the U.S. Army is responsible for answering such FOIA requests? I had previously contacted three different FOIA Offices of the U.S. Army, but I never received an response to my requests.

 

I still have not received an answer for the two questions with regards to my FOIA request for Pine Bluff records. Could you indicate when I can expect a response either from you or directly from the Pine Bluff Arsenal?

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Martin Ottmann

 

 

October 13th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

 

Dear Martin Ottmann,

 

At this time you do not have to worry about appeal deadlines because the response you received was not considered a denial. Because you agreed to receive the document in redacted form, under the law it is not a denial. However, based on your questions we have gone back to Pine Bluff Arsenal requesting more information regarding whether there are any additional documents that exist that would be responsive to your request, and if so, what documents. Based on what Pine Bluff informs us, we will either 1) inform you there are no additional responsive documents, 2) if there are documents and they are exempt from disclosure, we will notify you of the existence of the documents and of the applicable FOIA exemption preventing disclosure, or 3) forward the documents to you. If there are no documents or this office determines they, or any portion, are exempt from disclosure, then those scenarios will be considered denials and you will be notified of appeal rights.

 

Right now, we do not have the answers yet, but expect more information soon. But, based on above, you are not missing any deadline to file an appeal.

 

If you have any questions, please let me know.

 

Regards,

 

Karen Barrows

Attorney-Advisor

AMSAS-GC

 

 

September 28th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

 

[…] I am in receipt of the document, which the U.S. Army arsenal in Pine Bluff has agreed to release. The document appears to represent a summary inventory of the past production of white phosphorus smoke-generating projectiles. Dates are not included in the document.

 

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to my original FOIA request, which stated: “Records of the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between 1990 and the date of this letter.”

 

As it is evident, the provided document does not represent all of the records, which I had asked for.  It is simply impossible that information about the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of those projectiles over a period of 19 years is comprised in a single spread sheet of mere 14 pages.

 

I therefore must conclude that the Pine Bluff Arsenal is still withholding records, which are responsive to my original FOIA request. Could you clarify this point with the FOIA authority at Pine Bluff and inform me, why these records are being withheld?

 

At this point, I am considering to file an appeal with regards to the fact that the release of the above-mentioned single record and the non-release of the other records are non-responsive to my original FOIA request. Could you point out to me the correct authority within the U.S. Army, whom I have to send such an appeal?

 

Thank you for your assistance. […]

 

 

September 22nd, 2009 - Letter by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command

 

[…] You submitted a FOIA request, dated March 20, 2009, seeking the records of the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between 1990 and the date of your letter.

 

The portion of your request seeking production, processing and storage records was referred to Pine Bluff Arsenal for processing. This letter is responsive to that portion of your request.

 

In an e-mail dated September 15, 2009, this office notified you that it was reviewing the releasability of the lot numbers in the responsive documents due to operational security concerns.

 

In an e-mail dated September 16, 2009, you wrote that you will accept a copy of the responsive documents with the lot numbers redacted. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that a redacted version of the responsive document may be released .

 

Because you have requested a copy of the responsive document in redacted form, this is not considered a denial on our part. However, if you are dissatisfied with the documents as provided, please notify this office. We will then forward them matter to the Initial Denial Authority for a determination as to releasability of the redacted portions. [...]

 

 

September 16th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

[…] Dear Ms. Keel-Welsh,

 

thank you for your e-mail.

 

I do not think that the lot numbers are important information for my request. At this stage, I accept a copy with the lot numbers redacted.

 

Sincerely yours, […]

 

 

September 15th, 2009 - 4th Reply by the U.S. State Department

 

[…] Mr. Ottmann,

 

We are in receipt of your e-mail dated September 14, 2009 informing us that you are withdrawing your request. As of today, no further action will be taken to complete the processing of your request. Your case will be closed in our system.

 

Sincerely, […]

 

 

September 15th, 2009 - 4th Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

[…] Dear Mr. Ottmann:

 

This office is currently reviewing operational security concerns regarding the release of lot numbers. In order to expedite your request, you may choose to receive the 14-page list with the lot numbers redacted. The remaining information would be the DODIC, NSN, Noun, Model, and Net Quantity.

 

Please let this office know if you will accept a copy of the list with the lot number redacted.

 

Sincerely,

 

Angela R. Keel-Welsh

Paralegal Specialist/FOIA Officer

HQ, Army Sustainment Command […]

 

 

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Air Force Central

 

[…] Dear Sirs,

 

I would like to inform you that I am hereby withdrawing the appeal of my FOIA request No. 2009-0008.

 

Sincerely yours, […]

 

 

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. State Department/Office of Information Programs

 

[…] Dear Sirs,

 

thank you for your letter from July 7th, 2009.

 

I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my FOIA request (No. 200902328) with this letter/e-mail.

 

Sincerely yours, […]

 

 

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Army Central

 

[…] Dear Sirs,

 

on March 21 and 27, 2009, I filed two FOIA requests by e-mail to the U.S. Army Central requesting records on the use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq and the production of such weapons at the “Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant”, a now-defunct former U.S. Army installation.

 

As I did not receive any confirmation of receipt of my FOIA requests, I filed on May 6, 2009 two FOIA appeals, again by e-mail, to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Nevertheless, I never received any response from these offices.

 

On July 29, 2009, I sent a request for information on the status of my FOIA requests to the e-mail address DAFOIA@conus.army.mil, but as again,  I did not receive any response by that office.

 

I am sending now your office, as a last resort, my sixth letter with the request to either process or to transfer my two FOIA requests to the appropriate offices within the U.S. Army.

 

 

September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

[…] Dear Mr. Bailey,

 

on May 14, 2009 you sent me a letter, stating that you have found 15 pages of documents that were responsive to my FOIA request and that you had sent them for review to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command.

 

Since then, I have neither received a further response from your office nor from the U.S. Army Sustainment Command.

 

Are these documents in question still being revied by the above-named office? When can expect a response or decision with regards to my FOIA request from that office? […]

 

 

July 29th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Army/FOIA Office

 

[…] Dear Sir,

 

on March 21 and 27, 2009, I filed two FOIA requests by e-mail to the U.S. Army Central requesting records on the use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq and the production of such weapons at the "Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant", a now-defunct former U.S. Army installation.

 

As I did not receive any confirmation of receipt of my FOIA requests, I filed on May 6th, 2009 two FOIA appeals, again by e-mail, to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Nevertheless, I never received any response from these offices.

 

I had filed other FOIA requests to other agencies within the US DoD, such as the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, and I always received prompt responses from these agencies. For this reason, I was wondering if the adresses are no longer valid or if I had not contacted the correct agencies.

 

I therefore would like to ask you, if you could tell me, if I had contacted the correct offices within the U.S. Army and if and how my original FOIA requests have indeed been processed. […]

 

 

July 14th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps

 

[…] As you were pviously apprised by Mr. J. B. Bennett, counsel for the Marine Corps Systems Command, your March 23, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, by which you seek to obtain copies of records reflecting the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and March 23, 2009, was transferred to this Headquarters to coordinate a search of the files maintained by the Aviation Department for responsive documents as they pertain to aviation assets. That transfer was received by this office on this date and is controlled under file HQMC-200900672.

 

Please be advised that, in an effort to assist you, I have initiated a search of the files maintained by the Aviation Department of this Headquarters for documents responsive to you request. Once completed, I will apprise you of the outcome of that search and advise you as to the availability of and/or releasability of any identified responsive documents. […]

 

July 13th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps System Command

 

[…] This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of March 23, 2009, originally addressed to the Chief of Naval Operations, for a copy of records reflecting the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and March 2009.

 

Your request was received by this command on July 10, 2009 and assigned file number MCSC200900105.

 

The requested information for ground assets is enclosed. The information regarding aviation assets falls under the cognizance of Headquarters Marine Corps, DC Aviation (ASL-30) and has been forwarded to the Headquarters Marine Corps FOIA office for direct response to you. […]

 

 

July 8th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps

 

[…] This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act Request of March 23, 2009, in which you seek records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of your request. Your request was received by this office on June 17, 2009 and assigned file number IMEF 2009-11.

 

In your request, you indicate that you are seeking records from U.S. military forces, please be advised that this response and referral only pertains to any responsive records the Marine Corps may have.

 

The command having cognizance over the subject matter of your request is Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC). I have forwarded your request to that office for action and direct response to you.[…]

 

 

July 7th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. State Department

 

[…] Based upon the information that you have provided, it does not appear that your website meets the criteria established by our regulations for granting media status. It does not publish or broadcast to the public, nor are entries posted on the website published by media outlets. In addition, the website is free, so that the product is not ‘made available for purchase by the general public.”

 

Accordingly, your appeal of our decision to place you in the “other” requestor category is denied. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. […]

 

 

June 10th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy

 

[…] This responds to your letter of April 26, 2009, in which you challenge the response of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to your FOIA request of March 23, 2009. You are seeking records related to the use of white phosphorus by U.S. Forces in Iraq from March 2003 until March 23, 2009.

 

Your appeal is a request for a final determination under the FOIA. For the following reasons, I grant your appeal and have remanded your request to CNO for re-processing in accordance with the FOIA.

 

CNO advised you that they could not process your request because it was too broad to enable them to conduct a reasonable search. I have reviewed your request and determined that the information you provided was sufficiently specific to allow a search. I have, therefore, remanded this to CNO to conduct a reasonable search and/or make appropriate referrals to other commands where responsive documents may be located. CNO will respond directly to you, providing any information releasable under the FOIA and identifying the basis for withholding any information under the FOIA exemptions. In the meantime, my staff referred your request to I Marine Expeditionary Force.

 

You retain the right to appeal the substance of the CNO’s remanded FOIA response. […]

 

 

May 14th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

[…] Please be advised that we have referred your FOIA request Case # FP-09-013693 along with responsive documents totaling 15 pages to the following organization for review and direct response to you. […]

 

 

May 12th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. State Department

 

[…] This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) request, dated March 19, 2009, for copies of documents concerning

 

1) Records of sale and export of incendiary weapons or smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus to the State of Israel and any other third country, state, or private entity or company between 1990 and present.

 

2) Records of the use of weapons described above by U.S. forces in Iraq between March 2003 to present and

 

3) Records of the use of weapons described above by the State of Israel and its military forces during its military operations in South Lebanon between 1982 and 2006 and in Gaza, Palestine from 2008 until 2009.

 

We will begin the processing of your request based upon the information provided in your communication. We will notify you as soon as responsive material has been retrieved and reviewed. […]

 

 

May 7th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Army/LAAP

 

[…] on March 27, 2009 I filed per e-mail a request under the Freedom of Information Act with the FOIA office of the U.S. Army Central for the following records:

 

“Records from the ‘Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant’ (LAAP) in Doyline, Webster Parish, Louisiana with regards to the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export, including copies of export licenses, of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus between 1988 and 1994.”

 

Since the FOIA office of the U.S. Army has received my request on March 27, 2009, I have neither received a reply nor any related communication from your office. The prescribed time limit for an initial response by the FOIA office, in accordance with U.S. Army Regulation 25-55, has since expired.

 

I therefore have to conclude that you have not performed an adequate search for the above-mentioned records as required under the FOIA and I hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this matter. […]

 

 

May 6th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Army

 

[…] on March 21, 2009 I filed per e-mail a request under the Freedom of Information Act with the FOIA office of the U.S. Army Central for the following records:

 

“Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter.”

 

Since the FOIA office of the U.S. Army has received my request on March 21, 2009, I have neither received a reply nor any related communication from your office. The prescribed time limit for an initial response by the FOIA office, in accordance with U.S. Army Regulation 25-55, has since expired.

 

I therefore have to conclude that you have not performed an adequate search for the above-mentioned records as required under the FOIA and I hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this matter. […]

 

 

May 3rd, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the U.S. Air Force

 

[…] this is an appeal with regards to the results of a record search, which your office has conducted and whose results you have communicated to me by letter of April 14th, 2009 in response to my FOIA request # 2009-0008.

 

In my original FOIA request from March 27th, 2009, I asked for “Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter.”

 

In response to my request, you have produced a single document, a spread sheet which apparently is part of an inventory but which does not relate to the *use* of the white phosphorus weapons in Iraq.

 

I therefore have to conclude that you have not performed an adequate search for records as required under the FOIA and I hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this matter. […]

 

 

May 1st, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy

 

[…] This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 26 April 2009, which has been assigned file number F09103. Please refer to that file number for any future questions or concerns regarding your appeal.

 

We receive numerous appeals and have a small staff available to process them. In fairness to all requestors, we process all appeals in the order in which they are received. The actual processing time may be affected by the number and complexity of other requests that were received in this office before yours. For that reason, we are unable to provide an estimated completion date at this time.

 

Your rights to judicial review will not be prejudiced by waiting until a substantive determination has been made regarding your appeal/request. […]

 

 

April 26th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

 

[…] this is an appeal with regards to your administrative denial from April 7th, 2009 of my FOIA request # DON 200900821.

 

In your denial you have stated that my FOIA request from March 23rd, 2009 would not comply with the federal regulation 32 CFR § 701.8 (a) (1), more specifically, that “the description provided in my request was too broad and general to facilitate a reasonable search”. Furthermore, you stated that the “Department of the Navy is not equipped to conduct a text search for ‘white phosphorus projectiles’.”

 

I would like to point out that I have indeed provided you with detailed information that fall into Category I and II of the above-mentioned federal regulation and which should fully enable you to do an adequate search for records, as it is required under the FOIA.

 

In my request, I used not only the term “white phosphorus projectiles”, but also “incendiary weapons” and “smoke-generating projectiles”. All these terms have been used in official Field Manuals by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, for example in FM 6-40 “Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery”.

 

Additionally, I provided you in my request with detailed information about the use of “white phosphorus projectiles” in Iraq during the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004. I included an excerpt of an article from the Field Artillery Magazine, which has been published by the U. S. Army Field Artillery Corps. This excerpt mentions the exact types of “white phosphorus” projectiles that had been used during that specific battle.

 

Last but not least, I provided you with a press article from BBC News, which mentioned the use of “white phosphorus projectiles” by the U.S. military in Iraq. This was during a time, when its employment was heavily discussed in the world media.

 

In summary, I have provided you with sufficient information to enable you to produce a list of responsive records in response to my FOIA request. Nevertheless, you have not performed an adequate search for records as required under the FOIA. I therefore ask you to have your appeals panel of the Judge Advocate General  of the Department of the Navy consider this matter. […]

 

 

April 14th, 2009 - Letter and Memorandum by U.S. Air Forces Central

 

[…] 1. USAFCENT/A4, AFCENT/A6, and USAFCENT/FOIA conducted a thorough search for documents pertaining to your request. Attached you will find a copy of the document retrieve from the A4 database in reference to the material that you requested. 

 

2. Legal review was conducted on 6 April 2009 with the following recommendations. Recommend release of requested material. […]

 

[…] Danny C. Martin, MSgt, USAF, Freedom of Information Act Manager

 

 

April 7th, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

 

[…] Dear Mr. Ottmann :

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated March 23, 2008 [sic]. Your request was received in our office on March 23, 2009.

 

Based on the information provided in your letter, we are unable to process your inquiry under the FOIA. In accordance with 32 CFR § 701.8 (a) (1), a requester is required to reasonably describe the records he seeks so that a knowledgeable official of the agency can conduct a search with reasonable effort. Your request does not comply with this requirement. The description provided in your request is too broad and general in nature to facilitate a reasonable search

 

Under 32 CFR § 701.8 (c), descriptive information about a record may be divided into two categories.

 

(i) Category I is file-related and includes information such as type of record, title, index citation, subject area, date the record was created, or its originator.

 

(ii) Category II is event-related and includes the circumstances that resulted in the record being created or the date and circumstances surrounding the event the record covers.

 

Generally, a record is not reasonably described unless the description contains sufficient Category I information to permit the conduct of an organized, not random search based on the DON activity’s filing arrangements and existing retrieval systems, or unless the record contains sufficient Category II information to permit inference of the Category I elements needed to conduct such a search.

 

The Department of the Navy is not equipped to conduct a text search for “white phosphorus projectiles” that will produce a list of responsive records. Without more specific information regarding the type of document you are requesting or the originator of those documents, we are unable to process your request.

 

In light of the above, we are closing our files on your request. You may file another request for the same information. If you choose to do so, please include more specific information regarding the documents you are seeking, the dates they were created, and the Navy activity with which they are associated.

 

If you have any questions, please contact Alyson Shade at […]

 

Sincerely

 

Miriam Brown-Lam

Head, DON PA/FOIA Policy Branch […]

 

 

March 31st, 2009 - Confirmation Letter by U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

[…] Dear Mr. Ottmann:

 

This confirms receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for records of the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between 1990 and the date of your letter. Your request was forwarded to this office from the IMCOM FOIA Requestor Service Center on March 26, 2009.

 

As the FOIA Officer for Pine Bluff Arsenal, I will process the production, processing and storage portion of your request. […]

 

 

March 30th, 2009 - Reply by U.S. Air Force Central

 

Mr Ottmann[,]

 

I received your request the latter part of last week and it is being processed at this time. Currently information has been retrieved and sent to our legal office for a legal review, however due to most of the attorneys being out of the office this week it may be sometime next week before I get this review and can send the requested information to you.

 

If you have any questions or concerning give me a call.

 

Danny C. Martin, MSgt, USAF

USAFCENT FOIA Program Manager (Interim) […]

 

 

March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central (LAAP)

 

[…] This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records from the “Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant” (LAAP) in Doyline, Webster Parish, Louisiana with regards to the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export, including copies of export licenses, of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus between 1988 and 1994.

 

For background, a report from Human Rights Watch from March 25th, 2009 titled “Rain of Fire/Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza” identified the markings of one of the projectiles found in Gaza and traced the source of the weapon back to the U.S. Army Ammunition Plant in Doyline, Webster Parish in Louisiana. […]

 

A website and a contact address of an FOIA office of the LAAP could not be located. A report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated the following about the LAAP:

 

“The Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility located on 14,974 acres in Doyline near Shreveport, Webster Parish, Louisiana. […]

 

“The Thiokol Corporation then operated the facility until 1996, after closing all production and loading of ammunition operations in October 1994. Valentec Systems, Inc., currently oversees/operates the facility under modified caretaker/partial standby status and several tenants occupy portions of the depot property (ETA 2000). […]”

 

I understand that the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant has been an installation of the U.S. Army and that it has been a U.S. military production and storage area of white phosphorus weapons. […]

 

 

March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force Central

 

[…] I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th, 2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida (FOIA Case # 09-0105). The FOIA Team replied that the request “would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.” As recommended by the U.S. Central Command, I subsequently filed the request with the Headquarters of the U.S. Air Forces. On March 26th, the FOIA office of the U.S. Air Forces, Headquarters informed me that it had forwarded my request to the FOIA office of the U.S. Air Forces Central (FOIA Case # 09-0422). For formal reasons, I am also hereby forwarding you this request.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […]

 

 

March 27th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. State Department

 

[…] EFOIA Request B9177

 

This email is to acknowledge our receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The details are provided below.

 

Case Control Number: 200902328

Requester’s Name: Martin Ottmann

Subject of Request: Info Re Weapons

 

Christopher A. Dossantos […]

 

 

March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Air Force, Headquarters

 

[…] Dear Mr. Ottman.

 

This is in response to your 20 March 2009 Freedom of Information Act to the original FOIA request you sent to the U. S. Central Command, FOIA case number 09-0105.

 

We are not the Office of Primary Responsibility for the documents you requested. Therefore, we are referring your request to the following activity for action. They will reply directly to you.

 

USAFCENT/FOIA

414 Campbell Street

Bldg 35

Shaw AFB SC 29152 […]

 

Sincerely,

 

Della V. Macias

Freedom of Information Act Disclosure Office

 

 

March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

Classification: unclassified [,] Caveats: FOUO

 

Mr. Martin,

 

Your FOIA request was referred to the FOIA Office at Pine Bluff Arsenal for processing and direct response to you. This does not constitute a denial of your request.

 

If you have any questions, please contact Jimmie Bailey, […]

 

Very respectfully,

 

Mischa E. Carter

Management Consultant

Administrative Services Division

Human Resources Directorate, HQ IMCOM […]

 

 

March 23rd, 2009 - FOIA Request to Chief of U.S. Naval Operations

 

[…] I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th, 2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to the U.S. Navy Personnel Command. The Navy Personnel Command on the other hand informed me today that it had forwarded my request to your agency. For formal reasons, I am also hereby forwarding my request to your agency.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […]

 

 

March 23rd, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Navy Personnel Command

 

Dear Mr. Ottmann, this activity does not maintain the kind of records that you seek. For your convenience, I have forwarded your request to the Navy’s main FOIA Office for review and referral as applicable.

 

Sincerely, David P. German, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Navy Personnel Command […]

 

 

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Navy Personnel Command

 

I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th, 2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to your agency, which I am doing hereby.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […]

 

 

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central

 

I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th, 2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to your agency, which I am doing hereby.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […]

 

 

March 21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force Headquarters

 

I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th, 2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to your agency, which I am doing hereby.

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […]

 

 

March 20th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Central Command

 

[…] 1. We received your below FOIA request in our office on 20 Mar 09. After further review, it has been determined the information you are requesting doesn't fall under the purview of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) but would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies (i.e. Army, Air Force etc.).  Below is the information regarding the agencies that we recommend you submit your FOIA request to that may have documents that you are seeking.

 

2. This will administratively close out your FOIA request with the United States Central Command.  If you have any questions or concerns, please use USCENTCOM FOIA 09-0105 for future correspondence. […]

 

 

March 20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Central Command

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter.

 

For background information on the use of white phosphorus projectiles by US forces in Iraq, a news article from BBC News from November 30th, 2005 stated:

 

“The United States’ most senior general has defended the use of weapons containing white phosphorus in Iraq. General Peter Pace said that such munitions were a ‘legitimate tool of the military’, used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens.

 

“Two weeks ago, the US admitted using it to flush out insurgents in Falluja last year - raising concerns that it might have hit civilians. Initially, the military denied using it against either insurgents or civilians. Correspondents said having had to retract its original denial was a public relations disaster for the US. […]”

 

 

March 20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

Records of the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between 1990 and the date of this letter.

 

For background, a report from Amnesty International from February 23rd, 2009 titled ‘Israel OPT/Fuelling Conflict: Foreign Arms Supplies to Israel/Gaza’ identified the markings of one of the projectiles found in Gaza and traced the source of the weapon back to the U.S. Army weapons arsenal in Pine Bluff in Arkansas. […]

 

I understand that the Pine Bluff Arsenal is the only U.S. military storage area of white phosphorus weapons, and according to Amnesty International, the ‘PB’ designation in the marking ‘PB-91K018-035’ refers to the Pine Bluff Arsenal. My request is not limited to the sale of white phosphorus weapons to the State of Israel. White phosphorus weapons were also used in the attack on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004. […]

 

 

March 19th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. State Department

FOIA Letter Confirmation by U.S. State Department

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following records:

 

1) Records of the sale and export of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus to the State of Israel and any other third country/state and/or any private entity or company between 1990 and the date of this letter.

 

2) Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosporus by U.S. forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter.

 

3) Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosporus by the State of Israel and its military forces during its military operations in South Lebanon between 1982 and 2006 and in Gaza, Palestine from 2008 until 2009. […]

 

 

Related Documents

 

March 19, 2009 - Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Memorandum by the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

 

“[…] The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, reflects our nation’s fundamental commitment to open government. This memorandum is meant to underscore that commitment and to ensure that it is realized in practice.

 

“A Presumption of Openness

 

“As President Obama instructed in his January 21 FOIA Memorandum, ‘The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.’ This presumption has two important implications.

 

“First, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

 

“Second, whenever an agency determines that it cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, it must consider whether it can make partial disclosure. Agencies should always be mindful that the FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. Even if some parts of a record must be withheld, other parts either may not be covered by a statutory exemption, or may be covered only in a technical sense unrelated to the actual impact of disclosure.

 

“At the same time, the disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests. But as the President stated in his memorandum, ‘The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.’

 

“Pursuant to the President’s directive that I issue new FOIA guidelines, I hereby rescind the Attorney General’s FOIA Memorandum of October 12, 2001, which stated that the Department of Justice would defend decisions to withhold records ‘unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.’

 

“Instead, the Department of Justice will defend a denial of a FOIA request only if (1) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or (2) disclosure is prohibited by law. With regard to litigation pending on the date of the issuance of this memorandum, this guidance should be taken into account and applied if practicable when, in the judgment of the Department of Justice lawyers handling the matter and the relevant agency defendants, there is a substantial likelihood that application of the guidance would result in a material disclosure of additional information. […]”

 

December 18th, 2007 - Mission Statement

Mission Statement by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal

 

“[…] Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) plays a role in the Army Force Integration Process and has direct involvement in various phases of the Life Cycle Systems Management Model: from Phase 2 - Engineering and Manufacturing Development, through Phase 3 - Production and Deployment and Phase 4 - Operation and Support. It produces, stores and demilitarizes conventional ammunition; serves as the Group Technology Center for illuminating and infrared munitions; serves as the Specified Mission Facility for smoke munitions and maintains the sole U. S. capability for white phosphorus fill. […]”

 

October 26th, 2005 - Teledyne Awarded $ 10 Million Pine Bluff Arsenal Subcontract

Press Release by Teledyne Technologies Inc.

 

“[…] Teledyne Technologies Incorporated […] today announced that Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., under contract to Shaw Environmental, Inc., a division of The Shaw Group Inc. […], has been awarded an 18-month $10 million contract to support modernization of the White Phosphorus Plant at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

 

“Under the contract, Teledyne Brown Engineering will design, procure, fabricate, assemble, integrate, test and deliver new white phosphorus processing components and subsystems at the facility, which is the only white phosphorus plant in the United States. White phosphorus is a chemical used to fill munitions and projectiles for signaling, screening and incendiary purposes. Modernization of the facility’s instrumentation and control systems will increase automated operations, limit manual handling of heavy and hazardous materials and significantly reduce the generation of solid and liquid wastes. […]”

 

December 23rd, 2002 - Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552/As Amended in 2002

Transcript of law by the U.S. Department of Justice

 

“[…] § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

 

“(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

 

“[…] (2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying

 

“(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;

 

“(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;

 

“(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public;

 

“(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and

 

“(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D); […]”

 

 

Pine Bluff Arsenal/Home of White Phosphorus Weapons

Main Entrance

Treatment facilities

“Tactical smoke demonstration”

Photo Credits

 

Background

 

1) White phosphorus shell explodes over Gaza city during military operations of Israeli defense forces - January 3rd, 2009 - Yannis Behrakis/Reuters;

 

Pine Bluff Arsenal/Home of White Phosphorus Weapons

 

1) The Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) is located in the Pine Bluff/White Hall area in southeast Arkansas, 35 miles southeast of Little Rock. We are a very small installation, but this community truly supports our military. You will find the cost of living moderate compared to living in the northern part of the United States. […] PBA was established in November 1941. PBA’s initial mission in World War II was the manufacture of incendiary grenades and bombs, however, the mission quickly expanded to manufacturing, loading, and storage of war gases, and the production and storage of pyrotechnic, riot control and white phosphorus munitions. PBA entered the waste management and demilitarization arena upon completion of a unique multi-furnace incinerator complex in 1978, and completion of the first permitted hazardous waste landfill in the U.S. in 1983. Selected as the sole site for the Binary Chemical Munitions disposal of obsolete chemical agent BZ, disposal was initiated 1980, and continued for a decade. PBA remains the second largest stateside storage site for the nation’s Chemical Stockpile. -  Retrieved on March 23rd, 2009 - Military Homefront/U.S. Department of Defense (website);

2) The Explosive Destruction System mission at Pine Bluff Arsenal marks the first time the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project will operate three systems side by side to treat chemical warfare materiel. Each system is housed in an environmental enclosure and monitored around the clock. - Retrieved on March 23rd, 2009 - U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (website);

3) Visitors on the National Defense Industrial Association tour are treated to a tactical smoke demonstration. Pine Bluff Arsenal is a major defense producer of smoke grenades, which are used to obscure or mark movements on the battlefield. - Retrieved on March 23rd, 2009 - U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (website);

 

 

Back to White Phosphorus Weapons in Iraq

Back to White Phosphorus Weapons in Lebanon

Back to White Phosphorus Weapons in Gaza

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to U.S. Military Complex

Back to main index