VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0362/01 1731614
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221614Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2932
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

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