CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): ARTICLE VI

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002577

SIPDIS

AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR CHUPA
WINPAC FOR FOLEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): ARTICLE VI
BILATS WRAP-UP

REF: A. A. L/VER/ODV/73619/03

B. 11 JULY 2003

C. B. NACS# 140630

D. 7 AUGUST 2003

E. C. NACS# 139498

F. 30 JUNE 2003

G. D. NACS# 129617

H. 14 AUGUST 2002

I. E. STATE 250474

This is CWC-102-03.

--------------
Background
--------------


1. US Del met with Per Runn (Deputy Director, Verification
Division),Faiza Patel-King (Verification Division),
Alexandru Dolea (Officer, Industry Verification Branch),and
Cinthia Echavarria (Senior Policy Officer, Policy Review
Branch) of the OPCW on 1 Oct 03 to discuss a variety of
Article VI issues. The Del consisted of: Rick D'Andrea
(State),Larry Denyer (Commerce-TCD),Gary Mallard
(Commerce-NIST),and Brandon Williams (Commerce Rep - Del).
Ref A proposed a meeting between the US and Technical
Secretariat (TS) to discuss Article VI issues. Ref B

SIPDIS
provided US agreement to the meetings. The following topics
were discussed:

--------------
Sampling and Analysis Policy
--------------


2. The Del inquired on the status of TS policy development
regarding the use of sampling and analysis during industry
inspections. Runn expressed that the TS's sampling and
analysis is viewed as just one of the many inspection team
tools available for successfully executing industry
inspections and that there are no preset conditions that
would mandate sampling and analysis. He indicated that this
tool, however, is much more expensive and logistically
difficult to use than other such tools. Therefore, the TS is
seeking to maximize limited resources. In particular, the TS
is investigating how to more regularly deploy, at a minimum,
sample collection and preparation equipment with teams to
allow this tool to be available to them. On balance,
however, the TS is formulating directives to TS Inspection
Team Leaders which allow for flexibility with respect to
sampling and analysis and which take into account operational
considerations and alternative methods of demonstrating
compliance which achieve the same degree of confidence and
validity as sampling and analysis, but may be less intrusive
to the inspected site. The TS made clear to Del that
sampling and analysis will not be conducted on a presumption
of use, or 'blank check' basis, during industry inspections.
The TS agreed to provide regular updates to Del regarding
development of their sampling and analysis policy.

--------------
Schedule 1 Chemical Activity
--------------


3. At the outset of discussions, the U.S. and TS agreed to
disagree on the CWC requirements for declaring Schedule 1
facilities. The TS view is that 1) once declared, Schedule 1
facilities remain inspectable unless a State Party formally
removes the plant site from the list of inspectable
facilities, and 2) annual declarations are required for
activities such as storage and consumption of Schedule 1
chemicals even if there is no annual production above 100
grams. The U.S. position is that no declarations are
required from facilities that produce Schedule 1 chemicals
below the 100-gram threshold in a given year. The TS had
questions for Del concerning declaration requirements in the
US CWC Regulations (CWCR) for facilities that fall under
paras 11 and 12 of Part VI of the Verification Annex. The TS
perceives these facilities as "jumping on and off" the
inspectable list because the CWCR requires declarations only
for facilities that exceed applicable declaration thresholds.
The TS presented a number of potential solutions to the
"problem." Only one TS idea, however, seemed to be a
workable solution in light of CWCR requirements and the
180-day advance notification issue: a "nil" declaration
provided by the USG for such facilities that produce under
the 100 g threshold and, as such, do not make an annual
declaration to the USG. The TS will pursue further
discussions on the 180-day issue.. The TS still feels,
however, that the question of inspectability is open
regardless of the below-threshold activity.

--------------
Sequential Inspections
--------------


4. The TS presented the results of several surveys it
carried out in 1998, 2000, and 2003 of States Parties
concerning support for sequential industry inspections. As a
result of the TS's optimization and efficiency initiative,
the TS is now requesting other dissenting States Parties to
reconsider their opposition to sequential inspections in the
hopes of maximizing available resources. To allay State
Party concerns that sequential inspections could drive the
selection of sites for inspections, the TS outlined the
two-tier process of site selection. First, the TS draws
plant sites for inspection, followed by ordering inspections
in consideration of sequential inspections, where possible.
The TS assured the Del that the confidentiality problems
experienced during the only sequential industry inspections
held in the U.S. were isolated incidents. To address U.S.
confidentiality concerns, the TS offered to develop formal

SIPDIS
agreements with States Parties to address particular
confidentiality, administrative or logistical concerns. For

SIPDIS
example, the TS offered to craft an agreement that limits
sequential inspections to a one-week time period,
accommodates technical equipment or additional
point-of-entry/exit procedures, and restricts sequential
inspections to only intra-state inspections. The TS also
committed to provide a copy of their confidentiality
procedures to the U.S. for review. The TS closed the meeting
by asking the Del what our ideas were on conducting
sequential inspections at plant sites located on the same
industrial complex. Del noted that such an approach would
appear to end-run the selection predictability process and
appears intended to short-cut the plant/plant site
delineation issue to essentially conduct one inspection at an
industrial complex (not necessarily one plant site). Del
also noted problems associated with 'bleeding' of information
and issues between plant sites.

--------------
Facility Agreements
--------------


5. Del and TS briefly discussed the scheduled facilitation
on the need for and format of Schedule 2 facility agreements.
The TS indicated their preference for a facilitation focused
on format rather than the establishment of criteria for a
State Party to opt-out of negotiating facility agreements.
Del signaled our support for such a format-oriented
facilitation. The TS also mentioned that they are
considering the use of a form to collect risk data rather
than wrestle with what they called the "big format." Del
reserves judgment on the utility of such an approach until
the form is seen and reviewed.

--------------
Original Records
--------------


6. There was general discussion about requirements for the
provision of "original records" during industry inspections.
The TS acknowledged that with more and more companies moving
to purely electronic recordkeeping systems, the idea of
original paper batch tickets and documents are no longer a
guarantee. The TS echoed the Del's observation that the real
issue is providing the inspection team with records that can
adequately be authenticated, regardless of their format. The
Del and TS agreed that, in cases where the actual, "original"
records are not on-hand and copies or other authentic records
as identified in the CWCR are provided, that authentic
records are acceptable.

--------------
Absence of Schedule 1 Methodology
--------------


7. The Del questioned the TS on its progress on developing
internal guidelines on verifying the absence of Schedule 1
chemicals during industry inspections. Runn noted that the
TS is currently formulating directives to TS Inspection Team

SIPDIS
Leaders which allow for flexibility in pursuing specific and
technical questions where necessary and related to verifying
the absence of Schedule 1 chemicals and for teams to 'cease
and desist' when there are not specific questions, technical
issues or ambiguities. Similar to sampling and analysis,
there was a shared desire to avoid a 'blank check' approach
in which teams would pursue unnecessary lines of questions.
There was also a shared desire to balance against a checklist
that might provide a roadmap to States Parties to evade
detection of clandestine activities. Del indicated, however,
that specific documentation or guidelines would need to be
reviewed to ensure progress is being made in this area and
reminded the TS that if progress is not made, the U.S. is
contempla
ting moving, based on the requirements articulated in the
Report of the First Review Conference, to remand the issue
for decision by the industry cluster group.

--------------
Next Steps
--------------


8. The TS expressed its appreciation for these consultations
and their desire for further talks. Topics for future
consultations include the 90-day window prior to receipt of
annual declarations of past activities during which other
chemical production facilities are not inspectable, and
access to records based on declarations of anticipated
activities. Del agreed in principle to further
consultations, but there was no discussion of when these
talks would be held.


9. Javits sends.

SOBEL