CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 000348

SIPDIS

STATE FOR 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 LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP OF
FEBRUARY 3-6 INDUSTRY INTERSESSIONALS

This is CWC-18-04

--------------
Captive Use
--------------


1. (U) The decision regarding Schedule 2/3 Captive Use
remains on a political track, with the Indian delegation
indicating they support the Schedule 2/3 Captive Use
decision, as written, but noting their interagency review
process has not yet completed. Privately, the Indians
informed Del that their consideration of the issue is moving
in the "right direction," that the text of the decision
document has received support by their technical experts, and
lacks only acceptance by their legal authorities.


2. (U) To avoid reopening the text of the Schedule 2/3
Captive Use decision and allow the political process to
continue, the facilitator (Rudduck, UK) focused discussion on
the German paper regarding Schedule 1 Captive Use. Canada
was the only delegation to raise serious concerns with the
German paper, citing that any decision clarifying the
declarability of Schedule 1 Captive Use creates a requirement
in absence of demonstrated activity. The Canadians noted
that all German examples are speculative and that, to their
knowledge, no production of Schedule 1 chemicals is ongoing.
Furthermore, the Canadians noted that Schedule 1 "unwanted
byproducts or intermediates" produced during manufacture of
Schedule 1 chemicals should not be declared, either on their
own or as elements of facility aggregate production totals.
The Russian Federation seconded the Canadian intervention.


3. (U) Del and the United Kingdom noted the examples
provided in German paper are derived from open literature and
though no evidence exists suggesting undeclared Schedule 1
Captive Use production is ongoing, use of the listed
production pathways cannot be ruled out. Del and the UK
further stated that any production of Schedule 1 above
relevant thresholds constitutes a declarable activity and the
treaty, existing law and regulations already cover that
production. However, Del and UK asserted that clarifying
Schedule 1 Captive Use is subject to declaration if
applicable thresholds are exceeded, and this rationale is
consistent with the rationale for clarification in regards to
captive use for Schedule 2/3 chemicals.

--------------
Clarification of Declarations
--------------


4. (U) Discussion focused on the Technical Secretariat's
(TS) approach towards clarification requests and TS
clarification request status reports to the Executive Council
(EC). To facilitate understanding of the process, the
facilitator (Williams, U.S.) arranged for the TS to brief
participants on the current status of clarification requests
and to detail conditions under which the TS might not
consider a plant site inspectable based upon ambiguities or
inconsistencies in data declarations. The TS removes plant
sites from the inspectable facilities if a clarification
requests has been issued relative to: ambiguities in declared
quantities, plant site address, declared activity years,
production range codes, incorrect CAS numbers where no
chemicals are specified, incorrect chemical names and
mismatched CAS/chemical names. States Parties (SP) expressed
concern that this approach results in plant sites being
insulated from verification activities simply by withholding
responses.


5. (U) States Parties also expressed concern that, given
the compliance-related nature of such ambiguities, in
particular in relation to plant site inspectability, TS
reporting to the EC on clarification requests has not been
consistent or meticulous. States Parties called upon the TS
to gather further data and report, during the next round of
consultations, on how many plant sites have been removed from
verification consideration in the past and the status of
outstanding clarification requests related to the
inspectability of plant sites.


6. (U) Regarding the facilitator's proposal, some
delegations (Canada, Italy) requested the timeframe for
responses to clarification requests return to a 60-day
window. The TS presentation seemed to support a shorter
window as well, as that would have less effect on planning
inspections. However, the majority of delegations appeared
satisfied with the 90-day timeframe contained in the revised
proposal. The Indian delegation also requested that the use
of the word "ambiguities" in the second operative paragraph
be reconsidered, given its use in the treaty and relation to
on-site verification activities and access. No SP, however,
raised serious objection to the text proposed and a decision
appears ripe for adoption during EC-36 in the form circulated
to SP prior to the March 3 consultations.

--------------
Schedule 2 Facility Agreements
--------------


7. (U) Pursuant to SP's request during the previous round
of consultations, the facilitators (Heinzer, Switzerland and
Abe, Japan) arranged for TS Inspection Team Leaders (ITLs) to
present their views on the use of Schedule 2 facility
agreements during subsequent inspections. ITLs (Steyn and
Mears) confirmed that inspection teams do not find facility
agreements useful during subsequent inspection for inspection
planning or conduct. ITLs noted they use draft facility
agreements, if available, for information purposes only.
ITLs speculated that facility agreements may provide some
utility for an inspected State Party (iSP) if health, safety,
equipment, sampling or analysis procedures, or other specific
administrative arrangements would impact the conduct of an
inspection, but did not view these as critical to the TS
conduct of inspections.


8. (U) Discussions revealed a general consensus on a phased
approach for improving the facility agreement process may be
preferable. In such an approach, the first step would be for
the TS to demonstrate greater flexibility in the field to
reach agreement with an iSP not to conclude a facility
agreement. To this end, SP requested the TS to draft and
circulate, to inspection teams and States Party, guidelines
or criteria to expand the ability of TS teams to determine
that a facility agreement is unnecessary. Such criteria may
include facility type, complexity and estimated inspection
frequency. As a second step, SP noted that a streamlined
format for facility agreements is desirable, but recognized
that such a process runs the risk of opening up issues
resolved by the model facility agreement and could be time
consuming. Therefore, streamlining of declarations could be
a longer-term goal.


9. (U) Though the TS was receptive to ideas on how to
improve the process, the TS remains concerned that to draft
guidelines that would result in a "significant" reduction of
facility agreements proposed to the EC exceeds their
authority. Therefore, the TS indicated that some decision or
report language to draft flexible guidelines may be necessary
to provide the TS with top-cover. (COMMENT: Report language
urging the TS to make greater use of the "opt-out" provision
in the CWC should be developed as soon as possible. This
will provide both policy direction and political cover for a
change in TS practice. END COMMENT.)

--------------
Schedule 2A/2A* Low Concentrations
--------------


10. (U) UK experts delivered a detailed presentation based
on their Perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) paper ("Report on
investigations into industrial production of PFIB at
Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and Hexafluoropropylene (HFP)
monomer production facilities" 26 Jan 04),which essentially
says that because TFE and HFP manufacturers have the
capability to produce the unwanted by-product, PFIB, in large
quantities in high concentration, both via chemistry and
engineering changes to the process, they pose a risk to the
object and purpose of the Convention. States Parties were
set to "receive" mode, and offered little comment either in
support or non-support of the UK proposal.


11. (U) The facilitator (Wade, UK) also circulated a draft
decision covering each of the three Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals
(Amiton, PFIB and BZ). States Parties indicated such a
decision was not ripe for text agreement yet, given that
technical discussions remain ongoing, but that such a
decision is consistent with the SP desire to have one
decision for all three chemicals. However, since the
decision document suggests .1% appropriate for Amiton and
PFIB and no concentration for BZ (all should be declared),
some SP, including the UK, Italy, India and France, expressed
a desire to see the chemicals treated equally, with one set
concentration limit. No countervailing views were offered.


12. (U) COMMENT: One read of the UK paper suggests that a
cumulative total for quantity is acceptable for declaration
purposes and any spike above relevant concentration threshold
would trigger a declaration requirement. Del notes this
appears inconsistent with the understanding reached on
Boundaries of Production and Schedule 2/3 Captive Use that
stipulates that a declaration requirement is triggered if
both concentration and quantity are exceeded, simultaneously.
END COMMENT.


13. (U) Italy suggested that 0.5% is more appropriate for
BZ, in particular, and circulated a paper in support
("Technical Document on Schedule 2A* (BZ) Chemicals
Declarations for Low Concentrations" 4 February 04). In this
paper, the Italians argue that the U.S. paper on Clidinium
Bromide, circulated during the last round of discussions,
does not reflect the standard synthesis route for CB, and is
incorrect on an important process point. Specifically, the
Italian paper notes that "the hypothesis formulated by the
USA in which industrial producers (producers of Clidinium
Bromide),could react the compounds simultaneously, is not
feasible from a technical point of view". If this statement
is correct, there are potential implications for the minimum
viable concentration of BZ in the process; as a result, this
is the core of the Italian argument for a 0.5% threshold.
Del, supported by Germany, requested the Italians provide
back up data for their assertion. No other SP offered
alternative concentrations.

--------------
Handbook on Chemicals/Declaration Handbook
--------------


14. (U) States Parties appeared to reach consensus on EC
report language to request the TS to place an asterisk (*) by
Schedule 2/3 chemicals which have been declared since entry
into force to the TS in the Handbook on Chemicals. Such a
marking could assist non-technical personnel in making
declarations for scheduled chemical imports, exports,
production, processing and consumption activities. Schedule
1 marking, however, remains undecided. The facilitator
(Ruck, Germany) circulated a paper containing proposals on
setting a marking threshold for Schedule 1 chemicals that
would differentiate between those listed due to small
quantity research and analytical purposes and those normally
commercially produced and/or traded.


15. (U) The facilitator also reviewed his changes
(correction and administrative) to the Handbook on Chemicals
and requested interested SP to review. The bulk of the
changes eliminated duplicate entries and errors in chemical
names/structural diagrams. Based upon input, the facilitator
anticipates presenting the comments to the TS for
incorporation into a revised version of the Handbook. Del
requested to be involved in this project and awaits an
electronic copy of proposed changes for transmittal.

-------------- --
Clarification Requests - Transfer Discrepancies
-------------- --


16. (U) Facilitator (Williams, U.S.) focused discussion on
instructing the TS to apply logic and clear rationales for
pursuing clarification requests and reporting such requests
to the EC, in relation to transfer discrepancies. Rather
than setting standards and guidelines at present, SP called
upon the TS to revise their methodology and report on
progress achieved by June 2004, which will allow the TS to
accommodate the first submissions of C-7/Dec.14 streamlined
data. Should SP continue to have concerns regarding TS
clarification requests, SP expressed their intent to provide
specific recommendations and/or standards for transfer
discrepancy resolution. Germany, Italy and the U.S. were
most insistent regarding the need for the TS to revise their
process.


17. (U) The majority of SP were clear that the TS role is
not to pursue a "material balance" for transfer
reconciliation and only to pursue clarifications of transfers
which appear substantively inconsistent and of compliance
concern, deemed reportable under Article VIII, paragraph 40
to the EC. (COMMENT: As in the case of facility agreement
discussions, EC report language could be useful both to give
general policy direction on this matter to the TS and to
provide political "top cover" for changes from current
practice. Given the substantial agreement among delegations
on key points, such language could probably be agreed in time
for the 36th EC session. END COMMENT.)


18. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL