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