Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
09THEHAGUE754 | 2009-12-17 11:00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy The Hague |
1. (U) SUMMARY: In conjunction with its annual meeting for National Authorities (ref A), the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) hosted a workshop on other chemical production facilities (OCPFs) in The Hague on November 25. Washington experts from State/VCI and Commerce/BIS as well as local Delrep attended. The workshop, organized by the OPCW's Technical Secretariat (TS), was chaired by Brazilian Ambassador Jose Medeiros and included a range of speakers from the TS, National Authorities and chemical industry. The workshop provided an overview of OCPF characteristics and of the Chemical Weapons Convention's regime for OCPFs before focusing on the relevance of the OCPF regime in an evolving chemical industry and approaches to make the regime more effective. Following the workshop, Commerce representative went on a site visit to a Dutch OCPF on November 26. END SUMMARY. -------------------------- - EVOLVING CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND THE OCPF REGIME -------------------------- - 2. (U) Steve Wade (Head of the TS Declarations Branch) and Satya Dobhal (a Senior Industry Officer in the TS Industry Verification Branch) addressed declaration and verification requirements for OCPFs and described experiences since entry-into-force of the Convention. They emphasized that the OCPF regime is an important nonproliferation tool whose implementation is carefully balanced against the cost and impact on chemical industry. Wade encouraged the use of product group sub-codes -- proposed by the TS in 2008 -- by member states declaring activities at OCPFs in order to help the TS reduce the probability of selecting lesser- relevant plant sites for inspection. He noted that 27 member states (just over 35% of those declaring OCPFs) used the proposed sub-codes in their 2008 updates on OCPF activities. Dobhal stated that the TS pays special attention to administrative issues and technical points in final inspection reports, including: owner/operator identification, numbers of DOC/PSF plants, production ranges and activity codes, and differences in interpretation of the Convention between the TS and the inspected state party. 3. (U) Dobhal spoke about the benefits of sequential inspections, stressing increased efficiency and financial savings to the TS and member states. During the question and answer session, a representative from the Pakistani National Authority noted Pakistan's concern that increased efficiencies through sequential inspections would only lead to more OCPF inspections. A representative from the Indian National Authority followed up with concerns on protecting confidentiality of different plant sites during sequential inspections. -------------------------- CHARACTERISTICS OF OCPFS -------------------------- 4. (U) Peter Boehme (a Senior Industry Officer in the TS Industry Verification Branch) described the technical features of OCPFs and their chemical production processes. He addressed unit, batch and continuous processes and applied these to examples Qcontinuous processes and applied these to examples of processes for OCPFs in the chemical industry. Laurentiu Lazar (another TS Senior Industry Officer) spoke about the experiences gained by the TS during OCPF inspections. He noted the significance of a site's engineering capabilities for producing discrete organic chemical (DOCs) -- rather than the chemicals themselves -- to determine the absence of Schedule 1 chemicals during an OCPF inspection. Explaining the rationale behind the proposed product sub-codes mentioned by Wade earlier, Lazar stated that approximately 200 of the 639 OCPF inspections carried out were at sites with dedicated and typically continuous operations which produced items of low relevance to the Convention (such as urea, formaldehyde methanol and soaps). 5. (U) Boehme noted that about 10% of OCPF inspections went to sites which should not have been declared due to member states failing either to update their OCPF declarations or to understand declaration requirements. (Del note: Boehme's figure was for 2007, which saw a spike from previous years. Inspections at non- declarable/inspectable sites fell to 4% in both 2008 and 2009. End note.) Boehme also posited that during OCPF inspections the TS increasingly will encounter new technologies and materials, including use of micro-reactors, nano-materials and genetically-engineered catalysts and products. 6. (U) Tsuyoshi Okuyama (a Senior Policy and Review Officer in the TS Policy Review Branch) presented an overview of the current methodology for selecting OCPFs for inspection. Okuyama highlighted the uneven distribution of OCPFs among the 76 member states declaring facilities: 10 member states have more than 75% of declared OCPFs while 38 member states have only 3%. Due to this situation, he predicted that, in a couple of years, the current methodology will concentrate the majority of OCPF inspections in a few member states and these OCPFs will be of lesser relevance to the Convention. -------------------------- -------------------------- APPROACHES TO MAKE THE OCPF REGIME MORE EFFECTIVE -------------------------- -------------------------- 7. (U) TS Inspection Team Leader Antonius Roof reviewed current inspection procedures, from planning to on-site execution to finalization. He emphasized that a good pre-inspection briefing and a thorough plant site tour are important to insure an efficient and successful inspection. Roof opined that sampling and analysis (S&A) would enhance OCPF inspections and that, with newly- developed sample preparation procedures, S&A could be accomplished in the 24 hours allotted to OCPF inspections. Bill Kane (Head of the TS Industry Verification Branch) followed Roof's presentation with a call for member states to implement the two TS proposals on enhancing OCPF declarations: using product sub-codes and providing additional information on plant site characteristics. He reiterated the TS claim that the proposals will help focus the selection of OCPF inspections to more relevant sites. Marthinus van Schalkwyk (South Africa), the facilitator for consultations on OCPF declaration enhancements, reported that his consultations so far have not resulted in member states reaching a consensus decision on the proposals; he noted that the outlook for agreement Qproposals; he noted that the outlook for agreement was not promising. 8. (U) Stephanie Dare-Doyen from the French National Authority gave a presentation on the OPCW confidentiality regime and its relation to inspections. She commented that the experience of France has been positive and that the regime appears to be adequate. However, she noted the need for TS inspectors to understand industry concerns about protecting confidentiality, particularly related to the development of new technologies, such as biological-sourced chemicals and micro-reactors. -------------------------- - EVOLVING CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND THE OCPF REGIME -------------------------- - 9. (U) Four representatives from different National Authorities made the final round of presentations addressing national perspectives on the OCPF regime and its relationship to their countries' industries. Yinong Zhao (China), stated China's concern that, since 2008, the Director-General's modified interim OCPF site selection methodology has sent too many inspections to China. Zhao explained this situation was a result of the geographic selection element (p=0.5xN1/2) in the selection algorithm, and he proposed using a cube root (p=N1/3) to redress the problem. He also expressed China's view that PSF plants are the most important OCPFs and that the A-14 selection algorithm should be modified to increase the probability of selecting PSF sites for inspection. G. Narendra Kumar (India) reiterated the Indian position that there is an over-emphasis on OCPFs to the detriment of scheduled chemical facilities. He suggested that the verification regime should consider looking at end users rather than producers. Like the Chinese presenter, Kumar stated that the A-14 selection algorithm should be modified to increase the probability of selecting PSF sites for inspection. 10. (U) Melanie Reddlar (South Africa) described the evolution of South African chemical industry, noting the current trend to produce chemicals for niche markets rather than commodity chemicals. She posited that the current OCPF site selection methodology does not guarantee selection of the most-relevant sites. Reddlar suggested that declaration requirements should be changed to include actual chemicals produced thereby allowing the TS to focus inspections on the most-relevant OCPFs. With only a few minutes left to give his presentation at the end of the workshop, Bob Mathews (Australia) noted that most of his comments on the technical aspects of the OCPF regime were taken from an article he had written for the July 2009 edition of the CBW Conventions Bulletin (published by the Harvard-Sussex Program). Having been involved in the negotiations on the Convention in Geneva, Mathews explained the reasoning behind the OCPF regime, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein had used OCPFs to produce chemical weapons in Iraq in the 1980s. He commented that much needs to be done to maximize the non-proliferation benefits of the OCPF regime. -------------------------- INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION STATEMENT -------------------------- 11. (U) Eric Jandraseta of the Swiss Chemical Association presented a statement on behalf of the ICCA/CEFIC and ACC clarifying their 2008 statement on the two TS proposals for OCPFs. The current position of the chemical industry association is that the elements proposed by the TS will not improve OCPF site selection for inspection. The Qimprove OCPF site selection for inspection. The industry association statement also included a recommendation that the A-14 algorithm be modified to lower the probability of selecting OCPF sites which had previously been inspected under the Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 regimes, claiming these sites would pose a lower risk to the object and purpose of the Convention. 12. (U) Beik sends. LEVIN |