VZCZCXYZ0008
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0848 0901801
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311742Z MAR 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 030848 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC OPCW CBW
SUBJECT: CWC: GUIDANCE FOR APRIL 1-2, 2009 CHEMICAL 
INDUSTRY ISSUES CONSULTATIONS 
 
REF: A. S/641/2007 (MAY 25 2007 DG NOTE ON INITIATIVE BY 
        THE DG ON OCPF SELECTION METHODOLOGY) 
     ¶B. EC-55/DG.8 (FEBRUARY 2 2009 DG NOTE ON OCPF 
        SELECTION METHODOLOGY PERFORMANCE) 
     ¶C. 2008 STATE 101009 (SEPTEMBER 22 2008) GUIDANCE 
        FOR SEPTEMBER 25-26 2008 WORKSHOP) 
     ¶D. 2009 THE HAGUE 000099 (FEBRUARY 16 REPORT FOR 
        THE FEBRUARY 10 2009 INDUSTRY CLUSTER 
        MEETINGS) 
     ¶E. FACILITATORS NOTE (MARCH 24 DRAFT DECISION ON 
        2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS) 
     ¶F. 15 CFR VOLUME 2 PART 713 (ACTIVITIES INVOLVING 
        SCHEDULE 2 CHEMICALS) 
     ¶G. 22 USC SECTION 006742 (PROHIBITION RELATING TO 
        LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF SCHEDULE 2 AND 3 
        CHEMICALS) 
     ¶H. EC-53/S/5 (JUNE 17 TS NOTE ON ENHANCED 
        INFORMATION IN OCPF DECLARATIONS) 
     ¶I. EC-53/DG.11 (JUNE 17 DG NOTE ON OCPF FACILITY 
        DECLARATION INFORMATION) 
     ¶J. 2008 STATE 072706 (JULY 7 GUIDANCE FOR JULY 8 
        2008 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS) 
 
¶1. (U) This document provides guidance for the CWC Delegation 
in The Hague for three consultation sessions on chemical 
industry issues being held by the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on April 1-2, 2009. 
The April 1, 2009 session will address inspection results for 
other chemical production facilities (OCPFs) for 2008.  Two 
sessions on April 2, 2009 will address low concentration 
limits for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and the enhancement 
of OCPF declarations. 
 
¶2. (U) The first consultation session is expected to provide 
a forum for States Parties to share their views for the first 
time on a report from the Director General (DG) on 2008 OCPF 
inspection results that was released prior to the February 
17-20, 2009 Executive Council Session. The next two sessions 
are continuations of ongoing consultations, and will provide 
opportunities to make substantive progress on Schedule 2A and 
2A* low concentration limits and the enhancement of OCPF 
declarations. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
2008 Results of the OCPF Site Selection 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) In response to States Parties, concerns with the 
effectiveness of the methodology used to select OCPF sites 
for inspection, the Technical Secretariat (T.S.) developed a 
modified selection methodology in 2007, based on proposals 
from the industry cluster consultations (Ref. A). The 
modified methodology was used for OCPF selection beginning in 
January 2008. The February 2, 2009 DG Note (Ref. B) provides 
an analysis of the results after one year (for the 118 OCPF 
inspections in 2008). 
 
¶4. (U) Del should allow other States Parties to initiate 
discussion, with particular attention to States Parties 
critical of the modified methodology and the issues raised, 
the results of its application, and any alternatives 
suggested. 
 
¶5. (U) Del should acknowledge that the results for 2008, as 
compared to 2007 OCPF inspections, show: 
 
- a demonstrable change in the distribution of numbers of 
inspections toward States Parties with larger numbers of 
declared sites; 
 
- an increase in the overall percentage of inspections at 
high or medium relevance facilities, based on the A14 
methodology (See Ref. C for methodology background); and 
 
- a greater percentage of inspections in the developed 
regions - Asia and Western Europe and Others groups (for 2008 
inspections compared to all OCPF inspection through 2007). 
 
¶6. (U) Del should support continued implementation of the 
modified methodology through 2009 with reassessment based on 
2009 results and its interaction with any additional changes 
in selection methodology. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
Applicable Concentrations Limits for Mixtures of Schedule 2A 
and 2A* Chemicals 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶7. (U) The most recent consultation on Schedule 2A and 2A* 
low concentration limits ) February 10, 2009 ) produced 
little change in the two groupings of States Parties, those 
supporting a limit of 1 % or less, or those supporting a 
higher (e.g., 30%) limit (Ref. D). In an effort to move to a 
resolution, the facilitator has  distributed a draft decision 
with 1% or less, 5% or less, or 10% or less as the proposed 
limit, to be implemented by January 1, 2011 with review one 
year after implementation (Ref. E). 
 
¶8. (SBU) The continued split into two entrenched &high8 and 
&low8 positions has led to the facilitator's effort to 
focus on finding a compromise level that can gain consensus 
approval. There is long-standing concern with the inability 
of impacted States Parties to reach agreement on a compromise 
(e.g., from RevCon 2), and a recent indication that the 
Non-Aligned Movement might use the inability of Western 
States Parties to come to agreement to hold hostage expanded 
OCPF verification efforts (Ref. D). 
 
¶9. (U) The U.S. position to date had been shaped by the 
limitation imposed by current U.S. regulations set at 30% and 
the lower limit for U.S. regulations set in U.S. implementing 
legislation at 10% (Refs. F and G, respectively.), i.e., that 
the United States will continue to regulate at the 30% level 
until there is an acceptable compromise solution, but would 
tentatively support a limit of &10% or less8 if a consensus 
had developed. The U.S. position has now been modified. We 
could accept the &10% or less8 limit if others also accept 
it. Del should urge delegations from both the &high8 and 
&low8 groups to endorse &10% or less8 as the acceptable 
compromise solution. 
 
¶10. (U) Del should make the following points during the 
discussion: 
 
- The United States believes that further technical 
discussion will not lead to a generally accepted approach and 
that political flexibility to move off entrenched positions 
is needed. 
- The United States supports the facilitator's effort to 
focus on a specific text on this issue and to encourage 
delegations to work toward a political compromise. 
 
- The draft decision (with a compromise lower limit, 2011 
implementation, and assessment of the consequences of its 
implementation after one year) is a potentially viable 
solution. 
 
- In addition to the three alternative levels currently being 
considered in the draft decision ((1%), (5%), and (10%) or 
less), a &30% or less8 limit should also be included in the 
draft decision to include the full range of States Parties, 
positions. 
 
) The United States could support, as a compromise solution, 
the limit of &10% or less8 on the condition that others do 
so, as well. 
 
Del should note any alternatives to the facilitator,s draft 
decision suggested by other delegations and any specific 
information presented, and report back to Washington. If 
appropriate, Del should seek out the suggesting delegation 
for bilateral discussion of the details of their proposal. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Enhancement of OCPF declarations 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) This session is expected to continue the February 10, 
2009 discussion of the Note from the T.S. (Ref. H) and its 
proposed changes to OCPF declaration form, which would 
require submission of additional information on the types of 
processes used and plant configuration ) batch or continuous 
processes and dedicated or multipurpose chemical production. 
During the February 2009 consultation, States Parties focused 
on the impact of the proposal on National Authorities and 
industry, and the need for clarification of the definitions 
for the added information required. The United States 
reported that it was still considering the proposal and did 
not offer specific comment. 
 
¶12. (U) Del should state that the United States has carefully 
reviewed the Note from the T.S. and consulted with the U.S. 
chemical industry on inclusion of the new declaration data, 
and offer the following points, based on these actions, in 
discussion of the T.S. Note: 
 
- The United States supports the T.S. in its continuing 
efforts to focus OCPF inspection efforts on sites of most 
relevance to the Convention. 
 
- The United States is concerned with instituting permanent 
changes to the declaration regime when the added value is 
unclear and believes that this consultation should closely 
examine the estimated effect of the T.S. proposal to 
determine if the declaration changes would yield positive and 
quantifiable results. 
 
- The United States believes that discussions of expanding 
declaration data should also include an assessment of the 
impact on inspection activities. 
 
- The United States believes that with any refinement of the 
selection methodology a mix of inspections at the three types 
of OCPF plants sites (i.e., high, medium, and low relevance, 
as designated by the T.S.) should be maintained. 
 
- Our analysis of the seven U.S. OCPF sites inspected in 2008 
suggested that the proposed declaration change would not have 
resulted in more relevant sites (i.e., batch / multipurpose) 
being inspected. Thus, The United States believes it would be 
beneficial for the T.S. to prepare an unclassified study of 
all 2008 OCPF inspections (118 sites) to determine if the 
proposed change would have resulted in the inspection of more 
relevant sites. This analysis would be most useful if it 
included a determination of: 1) the breakdown of inspections 
between high, medium and low relevance sites; and 2) the 
equipment characteristics and process type of each category 
of inspection.  This information would enable the 
consultation to assess how well these types of facilities are 
currently being captured and inspected under the current 
methodology. 
 
¶13. (U) The Note from the DG on additional, voluntary actions 
by the T.S. and States Parties to enhance OCPF declarations 
(Ref. I) may also be discussed. This consultation has not 
addressed this Note since its initial session in November 
¶2008. We expect the focus to be on continued discussion of 
its implementation. Del guidance remains consistent with the 
earlier consultations (Refs. C and J), e.g.: 
 
- We recognize that the T.S. and voluntary States 
Parties, actions in the DG,s Note will yield 
incremental improvements, but the magnitude is not known. We 
encourage the TS to provide an assessment of the potential 
effect of these voluntary changes. 
 
- The T.S. must ensure that Inspection Teams understand that 
the proposed use of amended group codes is voluntary and 
document future inspections accordingly, e.g., that not using 
the amended group codes should not be recorded in inspection 
reports as an issue requiring further action on the part of 
the plant site or State Party. 
 
Del should query other delegations on their experience to 
date in implementing any of the voluntary measures and their 
assessment of the potential value of their actions. 
 
¶14. (U) During the last consultation, the facilitator 
indicated that this session could also include T.S. 
discussions of the A14 algorithm used in the site selection 
methodology and an overview of the new &R8 value defined in 
the DG Note (Ref. B). Del should take careful note of any 
information presented and report back to Washington. 
CLINTON