CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, MAY 25-27, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000362 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, MAY 25-27, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 244 ¶B. THE HAGUE 99 ¶C. FACILITATOR'S DRAFT DECISION ON 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS (03/25/09) ¶D. STATE 52991 This is CWC-32-09. ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Two of the three Industry Cluster consultations at the OPCW on May 25-26 saw a continuation of discussions from the previous Industry Cluster consultations in February and April (refs A and B). Little progress was made on either Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations or enhancements to declarations of Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs). The third consultation focused on the OPCW,s Central Analytical Database (OCAD) and included presentations by Gary Mallard, Head of the OPCW Lab. On May 27, the first user group meeting on the Electronic Declaration Tool for National Authorities (EDNA) was held following the Industry Cluster consultations. END SUMMARY. -------------- OPCW CENTRAL ANALYTICAL DATABASE (OCAD) -------------- ¶2. (U) On May 25, Technical Secretariat representatives Bill Kane (Head, Industry Verification Branch) and Gary Mallard (Head, OPCW Lab) chaired a meeting on possible inclusion of additional chemicals in to the OPCW,s Central Analytical Database (OCAD). Mallard provided two briefings during the consultation on two separate issues concerning sampling and analysis activities: analytical derivatives of scheduled chemicals, and possible methods for reducing the need of non-OCAD searches during sampling and analysis at Schedule 2 plant sites. Though the two issues deal with two different technical issues, they both relate to the common theme of possible inclusion of unscheduled chemicals in the analytical activities during CWC inspections. ¶3. (U) The presentation and discussion on analytical derivatives of Scheduled chemicals presented a background on defining derivatives and why they are used in analytical activities. Mallard emphasized that derivatives of Scheduled chemicals are not a method of analysis for unscheduled chemicals (i.e., riot control agents and degradation products),and attempted to clarify that the TS considers derivates essential for the analysis of many Scheduled chemicals and that they improve the sensitivity for other Scheduled chemicals (up to tenfold). He provided examples of Scheduled and unscheduled derivatives and their uses, such as the need for using the analytical derivative for lewisite (unscheduled) to analyze for the presence of lewisite. Mallard also commented that inclusion of analytical derivatives could potentially reduce the time it takes to conduct sampling and analysis activities, noting that the TS laboratory is working on developing a method in which the use of some new derivatizing agents would not first require the sample to be dried. Mallard concluded the presentation by noting that while data for some derivatives of Scheduled compounds have been approved by the Council, some have not. A large number have been approved by the Validation Group but have not yet been sent to the Council. A DG note on derivative of Scheduled chemicals is being prepared for the Qof Scheduled chemicals is being prepared for the EC. ¶4. (U) The follow-up discussion period was brief, as a handful of delegations asked exploratory questions about terminology used in the presentation, which Mallard attempted to address. India distributed its non-paper on proposed inclusion of non-Scheduled chemicals in the OCAD to States Parties and requested it be discussed at the next session, noting the key theme that India is open to considering two separate OCADs, one for Article VI inspections and a separate, more comprehensive database for other activities (e.g., challenge and alleged use). Though not clearly related to Mallard's presentation on derivatives, Horst Reeps (Director, Verification Division) discussed how the use of degradation products in analytical activities can be useful in identifying Schedule 1 chemicals in a challenge inspection or alleged use scenario. ¶5. (U) Mallard's second presentation offered a proposal for addressing false positives without resorting to the use of a commercial database during analytical activities. Kane noted that analysis indicated a match with the OCAD in approximately half of the twenty-three Schedule 2 inspections involving sampling and analysis to date. Mallard indicated that the best way to resolve these matches has been to conduct analysis in the open mode and conduct analysis with a commercial database to properly identify the chemical, an approach that has concerned some States Parties. As an alternative, Mallard proposed adding spectral and retention data on compounds that are known to be possible false positives to the analytical suite for specific inspection scenarios. The TS would identify the appropriate chemicals during its technical preparations for each inspection. This data would be approved by the Validation Group but would not be included in the OCAD but rather a "separate set of chemicals." Furthermore, Mallard proposed that the use of the data would be entirely at the discretion of the inspected State Party and the need for its use would be addressed in the pre- inspection briefing. The analysis would only be opened up beyond the OCAD to those chemicals known to be false positives. As further grounds for this proposal, Mallard claimed that of the Schedule 2 inspections in which sampling and analysis was utilized, the chemical being analyzed was never misidentified as the Scheduled chemical when the spectra of the correct chemical was in the database. The approach could eliminate the need to conduct an open search to resolve a possible match. ¶6. (U) Though the concept Mallard was addressing was fairly straightforward, the bQefing was highly technical and follow-up questions (as well as subsequent offline discussions with some delegations) indicated that delegations had a difficult time grasping the information presented. The UK stated it had no objections in principle to the TS's approach but joined India and Sweden in requesting the Technical Secretariat prepare and distribute a simplified, nontechnical paper on the issue. Italy indicated its support for the idea, noting that it always uses open mode. Germany commented that if this approach were used, States Parties could continue to use the blinded mode (implying blinded mode could be used with fewer Q(implying blinded mode could be used with fewer problems). Delrep noted that the United States will review the proposal and that generally speaking, false positives are an issue that needs to be addressed given their frequency to date. The possibility of false positives should not be a disincentive for conducting analysis in the blinded mode. France commented that the proposal may provide a third "modified" option to open and blinded. -------------- 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS -------------- ¶7. (U) On May 26, facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy) chaired a consultation on low concentrations for 2A/2A* chemicals. Cornacchia opened by encouraging delegations to submit by June 12 the voluntary questionnaire sent to all States Parties on the anticipated impact of adopting various thresholds. Cornacchia then launched into the draft decision, which he had circulated in advance of the last meeting in April (refs A and C). Discussion focused on the three operational paragraphs, particularly on how long would be needed to implement the decision and when to review the results of the decision,s implementation. A number of delegations spoke against reopening the issue after agreeing on a threshold, preferring only to review or assess implementation and not the threshold itself. ¶8. (U) Turning to the threshold, Cornacchia stated that he sees the gap closing between those preferring a low threshold and those preferring a higher one. He noted his expectation that the results of the questionnaire would give a clearer picture of the effects of adopting a common threshold. Cornacchia insisted that while neither 0% nor 30% would be acceptable, whatever percentage is finally agreed would require good will from all sides. ¶9. (U) The Japanese expert distributed a paper with his thoughts on a possible way forward, entitled "Road Map: Steps to be taken before reaching total consensus." He introduced his paper by saying that both sides need to show more flexibility. The expert said that the agreed threshold should represent the optimal point between full visibility and unnecessary verification. He later said that 10-15% was a reasonable level of concentration based on the findings of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) but then conceded that the optimal point probably was somewhere between 0 and 10%, depending on the regulatory objectives of the threshold. The Italian expert countered that the SAB's findings clearly pointed to a 0% threshold if based purely on technological and scientific arguments; however, he noted that, as other considerations needed to be factored into the equation, a threshold around 10% seems appropriate. ¶10. (SBU) Del Comment: It was clear during the discussion that the Japanese expert's interventions and paper only served to confuse the issue, and many delegations were left wondering what he was trying to convey. End Comment. -------------- OCPF DECLARATION ENHANCEMENTS -------------- ¶11. (U) At the beginning of facilitator Marthinus van Schalkwyk's (South Africa) consultation on enhancing OCPF declarations on May 26, Bill Kane (Head, Industry Verification Branch) introduced a non-paper prepared by the TS in response to a request by the U.S. and other countries during the April Industry Cluster (ref A). The non-paper evaluated the effect of applying the proposed R value to the A14 values for the 118 OCPFs inspected during 2008. Kane said that approximately 71% of lower relevance sites (i.e., sites with an A14 Qlower relevance sites (i.e., sites with an A14 value equal to or less than 10) had an R value of 0.2, 0.3 or 0.7; he then said that he would expect a similar result if applied to all OCPFs. Kane noted that approximately 53% of all OCPFs currently have A14 values equal to or less than 10. ¶12. (U) U.S. Delrep asked whether any of the 118 OPCFs moved from higher relevance to medium relevance or from medium relevance to lower relevance with the application of the proposed R value. Kane was unable to provide any additional detail but promised to do so before the next Industry Cluster in July. The German expert asked if there was a distinction between "all dedicated" and "multipurpose" sites in the survey; Kane said that there had only been one multipurpose site out of 16, so it had been lumped together with the "all dedicated" sites. In response to a question posed by the Chinese delegate, Kane stated that none of the non-inspectable sites visited in 2008 would have been affected by applying the R factor and admitted that the new site selection methodology played a role in selecting fewer less relevant sites. ¶13. (U) The Canadian expert said that, having already implemented the declaration enhancements voluntarily, Canada found the additional declaration data to have a significant impact on Canadian industry by increasing the number of sites of lesser relevance. He noted that the square root in the A14 algorithm was found also to have a significant impact on the selection of various sites and said that Canada might come back later with a proposal on changing the square root. Van Schalkwyk closed the consultation by encouraging delegations to think on how to move forward, including considering a draft decision during the July Industry Cluster and the possibility of making a technical change to the Verification Annex to accommodate the proposed changes to declaration forms. -------------- EDNA USER GROUP -------------- ¶14. (U) On May 27, Steve Wade (Head, Declarations Branch) chaired the first meeting for users of the Electronic Declaration Tool for National Authorities (EDNA) during which the TS gave an update on its continuing development of EDNA. Wade announced that the second version of EDNA will be released by late November, to coincide with the annual National Authorities Day before the Conference of the States Parties, and will be expanded to include Schedule 2 and 3 declarations. Further expansion to include Schedule 1 declarations, while a long-term goal, is not a priority for the TS and probably will not be realized for a while. ¶15. (U) Of the 87 submissions received for 2007 Annual Declarations of Past Activities (ADPAs),7 were submitted electronically. With the launch of EDNA in late 2008, the number of electronic submission for 2008 ADPAs increased to 21 out of 69; 12 of the 21 electronic submissions used EDNA, including China's ADPA. ¶16. (U) BEIK SENDS. GALLAGHER