PC-IX/B/WP.3

Preparatory Commission for the	PC-IX/B/WP.3
Organisation for the Prohibition	25 October 1994
of Chemical Weapons	Original: ENGLISH

Ninth Session

(5 - 9 December 1994)

EXPERT GROUP ON INSPECTION PROCEDURES

FIFTH REPORT

1. Introduction

1.1 In accordance with the Plan of Activities for Expert Groups under Working Group B approved by the Commission at its Eighth Session and contained in Annex 2 to the Report of the Commission (PC-VIII/18), the Expert Group on Inspection Procedures met in The Hague from 20 to 25 October 1994 to continue its work.

1.2 Mr. Sergei Kisselev of the Russian Federation served as Chairman of the Group. He was assisted by Dr. Henk Boter of the Netherlands, who acted as Friend of the Chair on inspection equipment issues.

1.3 The work of the Group was facilitated by material tabled by the Secretariat and by non-papers submitted by the delegations of France, Japan and the Netherlands. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Secretariat, on request.

2. Tasks of the Group

2.1 The Group considered the following priority tasks identified by the Commission:

(a) consider the recommendations of the Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues;

(b) consider the issue of post-inspection activities in relation to inspection equipment;

(c) finalise technical specifications for outstanding items of inspection equipment and consider whether any new items of equipment identified by the Secretariat should be added to the list and would require the development of additional operational requirements and technical specifications;

(d) develop provisions for indicating the specific types of equipment for the particular types of inspections;

(e) develop a common understanding on the term "particular type of inspection" and the possible equipment-related consequences of the application of this term;

(f) consider the list of equipment with a view to developing the draft list of approved equipment mentioned in paragraph 27 of Part II of the Verification Annex; and

(g) develop criteria and methodology for performance testing of designated laboratories.

The issues identified in subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) above were considered in their interrelationship.

2.2 The Group also addressed the following tasks identified by the Commission:

(a) further elaborate administrative procedures for the conduct of inspections, including the issue of non-scheduled aircraft and of communication procedures;

(b) review the compilation of recommended procedures for acquiring and preparing samples along with the details on any additional sampling equipment items;

(c) address the number, level of training and any pre-qualification of inspector-analysts who would be required to implement the approved sampling and analysis procedures;

(d) consider inspection-related aspects of the draft OPCW media policy and make recommendations for its improvement, if necessary (this item will be the subject of consultations scheduled for 16 November 1994);

(e) consider sampling and analytical aspects of the conduct of investigations of alleged use;

(f) address the status of "experts" in the context of investigations of alleged use in regard to privileges and immunities;

(g) consider the Secretariat's recommendations defining further the global requirements and full scope of activities to be encompassed by the quality assurance (QA) programme and quality control (QC) system that will be implemented by the Organisation and an estimate of the financial implications for the Organisation of implementing a QA programme that includes QA as well as QC objectives; and

(h) develop sampling procedures and procedures for on-site and off-site analysis, including sampling and analysis for Schedule 1 chemicals.

2.3 In addition, the Group addressed the issue of the geographic reference system to be used by the OPCW and the implications thereof, identified for its consideration by Working Group B (PC-VII/B/2*, paragraph 2.9) at the Seventh Session of the Commission.

3. Post-inspection activities in relation to inspection equipment

The Group continued work on this issue based on a Chairman's non-paper which it revised further during the meeting. The Group was unable to finalise this work during the meeting, given the limitations in time and the number of tasks it had simultaneously to consider. The Chairman of the Group will conduct further consultations and will issue a revised paper reflecting the outcome of the Group's work. Member States are invited to review that revised paper, once it is available, and to communicate any comments they may have on it to the Chairman, to facilitate the finalisation of this issue during the next meeting of the Group.

4. Technical specifications of outstanding items of inspection equipment

4.1 The Group took note of the "Report of the Specialist Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues (Protective and Safety) to the Expert Group on Inspection Procedures". It provisionally adopted the proposed "General Requirements for Health and Safety Equipment" and, with some minor adjustments, the technical specifications for 15 items of health and safety equipment. These are contained in a revised Attachment 1 of the Task Force report, which is available from the Secretariat.

4.2 The Group, while accepting the rationale given by the Task Force for the change of certain names of equipment items as well as some regrouping of items, did not at this stage consider it necessary to take any action on the proposed changes. It agreed instead that the list of equipment as contained in the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7 shall remain the single equipment list agreed by the Commission for budgetary purposes, and that a re-issue of that list to include any necessary name changes and structural rearrangements, within the budgetary limits decided by the Commission in its 1995 Programme of Work and Budget, should wait until the Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues has finalised its work on all technical specifications and this Expert Group has agreed to them.

4.3 In relation to the technical specifications for chemical weapons and industrial chemical canisters, the Group endorsed the Task Force's recommendation that the acquisition of a single, combined canister should not be excluded, provided that it would meet the technical specifications for both equipment items as contained in paragraphs B.3 and B.5, including those contained in paragraph B.3.3 (c) of Attachment 1 to the report of the Task Force.

4.4 The Group considered the Secretariat paper entitled "Justification for new items of inspection equipment", and concluded that:

(a) there was at this stage no agreement on whether equipment for occupational safety monitoring is required as approved equipment. The Group requested the Secretariat to develop an analysis of all major risks which OPCW inspectors will be likely to face on inspections, and to offer possible approaches to minimising these risks;

(b) the item "reusable boots" should be included in the list of inspection equipment approved by the Commission for budgetary purposes (PC-VIII/A/WP.7). The Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues was tasked to develop operational requirements and technical specifications for this item of inspection equipment, at its future meeting. The Secretariat was requested to prepare a proposal for the inclusion of the item "reusable boots" in the list of equipment contained in the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7 while remaining within the limits set by the Commission for this budget programme, and submit it for consideration by the Expert Group on Programme of Work and Budget at its next meeting with a view to referring this proposal for adoption at the Ninth Session of the Commission.;

4.5 The Group agreed that the Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues should meet again for a 4-day meeting during the next intersessional period, preferably in December 1994, to finalise its work on the technical specifications for the items of equipment contained in Attachment 2 of the Task Force report presented to this Expert Group on 20 October 1994 , as well as on the operational requirements and technical specifications of the item "reusable boots".

4.6 The Group noted the importance of an early decision on procurement for evaluation of health and safety items, lest there be any negative impact on the preparedness of the Secretariat safely to train, equip, and deploy inspectors.

5. The draft list of approved equipment mentioned in paragraph 27 of Part II of the Verification Annex.

Provisions for indicating the specific types of equipment for the particular types of inspections.

Common understanding of the term "particular type of inspection" and the possible equipment-related consequences of the application of this term.

In considering these issues, the Group recalled its previous understanding relating to them. In particular, the Group recalled paragraph 3.2 of PC-VIII/B/WP.2 which states that Appendix 1 of PC-IV/B/WP.7 and the tables contained therein address the task of developing special provisions for the designation of specific types of equipment for specific kinds of inspections. The Group also recalled that in paragraph 3.3 of PC-VIII/B/WP.2, the Secretariat was requested to update the list of equipment mentioned in paragraph 3.2 of PC-VIII/B/WP.2, using PC-VIII/B/WP.1, with the view to developing the draft list of approved equipment mentioned in paragraph 27 of Part II of the Verification Annex. This list should give indications of the specific types of equipment for the particular types of inspections from which the Technical Secretariat, in accordance with paragraph 28 of Part II of the Verification Annex, will, to the extent possible, select that equipment which is specifically designed for the specific kind of inspection required. The Group reviewed a Secretariat paper on some of these issues and decided to return to the matter when the Secretariat is in a position to present a comprehensive draft, using the format from Appendix 1 of PC-IV/B/WP.7 and the list of equipment as currently contained in the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7.

6. Criteria and methodology for performance testing leading to the certification of designated laboratories

6.1 The Group discussed a Secretariat paper entitled "Proficiency Testing Leading to the Certification of 'Designated Laboratories'".

6.2 The Group elaborated a paper on the methodology of performance testing of designated laboratories (Attachment to this Report) and agreed to recommend it for adoption by the Commission.

6.3 The Group invited Member States to participate in a Specialist Task Force to develop criteria on the basis of which the performance of participants in the proficiency testing leading to the certification of designated laboratories should be evaluated. The Secretariat should request Member States to forward proposals for the evaluation criteria, preferably before the end of November 1994. It should then communicate to Member States recommended criteria for acceptable performance in proficiency testing, in advance of the first trial proficiency test in January/February 1995. Following that test, the Task Force should meet to draft a final set of criteria for approval by this Expert Group and for use in future proficiency tests.

7. Other tasks

7.1 The Group reviewed the current draft of the OPCW media policy in order to facilitate future work on this issue.

7.2 The Group considered a Secretariat discussion paper on the "Use of approved OPCW portable communications equipment during on-site inspections". The Group invited Member States to relay further comments on this to the Secretariat, and encouraged the Secretariat to continue the development of this paper taking into account the comments from delegations. Member States are also encouraged to indicate to the Secretariat any specific national problems they may have in this regard, and to initiate as soon as possible a process together with the Secretariat that would facilitate the future use of OPCW communications equipment on their territory.

7.3 The Group also developed and provisionally approved a paper on "Sampling and analysis during investigations of alleged use of chemical weapons". This paper, which is available from the Secretariat, is without prejudice to any procedures which may be followed if an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons were initiated pursuant to Article IX. The Group requested the Legal Adviser of the Commission to provide an opinion on the relationship between Parts X and XI of the Verification Annex in such a case, in due time before the next meeting of this Group. The Group agreed to return to this issue at its next meeting with a view to finalising its work on "Sampling and analysis during investigations of alleged use of chemical weapons".

7.4 The Group had an initial review of a Secretariat paper addressing "The status of 'experts' in the context of investigations of alleged use in regard to privileges and immunities". The Group requested the Secretariat, on the basis of this discussion paper, to prepare a possible draft understanding, to be submitted in time for this Expert Group to reach a recommendation during its next meeting.

7.5 The Group considered a non-paper submitted by the delegation of France on the issue of the geographic reference system to be used by the OPCW and the implications thereof, particularly the proposal contained in that paper to adopt the WGS 84 as the standard system to be used by the OPCW. The Group invited Member States to study the proposal in order to enable a decision on this issue by this Group at its next meeting.

7.6 The Group was informed by the Secretariat about the submission to the Secretariat of a study prepared by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, prepared on commission by the Secretariat, on "The Design and Costing of Quality Assurance Systems for the Preparatory Commission for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons". The Group received a non-paper from the Secretariat containing the Executive Summary of that study, but did not further discuss the issue. The Group requested the Secretariat to submit its recommendation on the issue in time for a decision by this Group at its next meeting.

7.7 The Group recalled its request to Member States, as recorded in paragraph 8 of PC-VIII/B/WP.12, to review the Secretariat background paper on equipment procurement and to provide any comments on the draft to the Secretariat.

8. Recommendations

8.1 The Group recommended that Working Group B:

(a) consider, with a view to forwarding it for adoption by the Commission at its Ninth Session, the document "Proficiency testing leading to certification of 'Designated Laboratories'" (Attachment to this Report); and

(b) task the Group at its next meeting to address the issues identified in paragraph 9 below.

8.2 The Group requested the Secretariat to:

(a) prepare the comprehensive draft mentioned in paragraph 5 above, using the format from Appendix 1 of PC-IV/B/WP.7 and the list of equipment as currently contained in the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7;

(b) develop an analysis of all major risks which OPCW inspectors will be likely to face on inspections, and to offer possible approaches to minimising these risks;

(c) request Member States, preferably before the end of November 1994, to forward proposals for the criteria on the basis of which the performance of participants in the proficiency testing leading to certification of designated laboratories should be evaluated;

(d) communicate to all Member States, in advance of the first trial proficiency test in January/February 1995, recommended criteria for acceptable performance in proficiency testing;

(e) continue work on the issue of the use of approved OPCW portable communications equipment during on-site inspection, taking into account any comments submitted to it by Member States;

(f) prepare, on the basis of the discussion paper submitted by the Secretariat, a possible draft understanding on the status of 'experts' in the context of investigations of alleged use in regard to privileges and immunities, to be submitted in time for this Expert Group to reach agreement on a recommendation at its next meeting; and

(g) prepare a proposal for the inclusion of the item "reusable boots" in the list of equipment contained in the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7 while remaining within the limits set by the Commission for this budget programme, and submit it for consideration by the Expert Group on Programme of Work and Budget at its next meeting with a view to referring this proposal for adoption at the Ninth Session of the Commission.

8.3 The Group drew the attention of the Expert Group on Programme of Work and Budget to paragraph 4.4 (b) of this Report.

8.4 The Group requested the Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues at its future meeting to finalise its work on the technical specifications for the items of equipment contained in Attachment 2 of the Task Force report presented to this Expert Group on 20 October 1994, as well as on the operational requirements and technical specifications of the item "reusable boots".

8.5 The Group requested the Legal Adviser of the Commission to provide, in due time before the next meeting of this Group, an opinion on the relationship between Parts X and XI of the Verification Annex if an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons were initiated pursuant to Article IX.

8.6 The Group invited Member States to:

(a) relay further comments to the Secretariat in relation to the issue of the use of approved OPCW portable communications equipment during on-site inspection. Member States are also encouraged to indicate to the Secretariat any specific national problems they may have in this regard, and, together with the Secretariat, to initiate as soon as possible a process that would facilitate the future use of OPCW communications equipment on their territory;

(b) study the proposal that the OPCW adopt a single standard geographic reference system such as WGS 84, in order to enable a decision on this issue by this Group at its next meeting; and

(c) review the Secretariat background paper on equipment procurement and to provide the Secretariat with any comments on it.

9. Future work

The Group agreed during the next intersessional period to address:

(a) the following priority tasks:

(i) consider the report of the Task Force on Inspection Equipment Issues;

(ii) finalise the consideration of the issue of procedures in relation to inspection equipment following inspection activities;

(iii) develop provisions for indicating the specific types of equipment for the particular types of inspections;

(iv) develop a common understanding on the term "particular type of inspection" and the possible equipment-related consequences of the application of this term;

(v) consider the list of equipment with a view to developing the draft list of approved equipment mentioned in paragraph 27 of Part II of the Verification Annex;

(vi) develop criteria for performance testing of designated laboratories;

(vii) finalise consideration of the issue of sampling and analytical aspects of the conduct of investigations of alleged use;

(viii) clarify the status of "experts" in the context of investigations of alleged use in regard to privileges and immunities;

(ix) consider a recommendation on adopting a single standard geographic reference system to be used by the OPCW;

(b) the other tasks remaining from paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 above.

Attachment

PROFICIENCY TESTING LEADING TO CERTIFICATION OF

“DESIGNATED LABORATORIES”

1. Tests will be open to all laboratories in Member States seeking to become a designated laboratory. The criteria for laboratories to be designated by the Organisation adopted by the Commission at its Sixth Session (PC-VI/22, paragraph 6.4) stipulate that such laboratories should:

(a) have established an internationally recognised quality assurance system;

(b) have obtained accreditation by an internationally recognised accreditation body for tasks for which they are seeking designation; and

2. Laboratories may opt to participate either on a self-assessment basis or be actively seeking designation. Prior to each test participating laboratories will be asked on which basis they wish to participate.

3. In accordance with the Commission's 1995 Budget (Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7) the cost of participation, to include sample analysis, as well as, where applicable, the costs of sample preparation and evaluation of test results, will be borne by the participating laboratory or its Member State. The Secretariat may be able to offer some financial assistance in this regard in 1995, but it will be extremely limited. Test samples preparation and evaluation of test results will be the responsibility of the Secretariat, but may either be contracted out or provided by a Member State on a cost-free basis. If the sample preparation and the evaluation of test results are contracted out or are provided by a Member State, the relationship between the participating laboratories and the laboratories preparing samples and carrying out the evaluation of results should be open and transparent.

4. Proficiency testing evaluation will be carried out on the basis of the criteria to be developed and agreed to by the Expert Group on Inspection Procedures. These criteria will be reviewed based on the results of the first proficiency test. It will be the objective of the Secretariat, as is mentioned in the Commission's 1995 Budget (paragraph 3.4.7 of the Annex to PC-VIII/A/WP.7), to carry out proficiency testing on a quarterly basis during 1995. However, the number of proficiency tests may subsequently decrease, depending on the above-mentioned criteria.

5. The first of these tests will be a “Trial Proficiency Test” to:

(a) evaluate the process;

(b) provide a means for familiarising new participants with the Commission's requirements;

(d) give participants an opportunity for self-evaluation.

6. A possible model for proficiency testing, including the trial proficiency test, is:

(a) the Secretariat announces the test schedule for the following quarter;

(b) the Secretariat has samples prepared:

(d) there will be two options for the analysis period:

(i) for laboratories seeking designation, 2 weeks are allowed for analysis and final reporting of the results, beginning from the date of the receipt of samples; or

(ii) for laboratories participating on a self-assessment basis, 4 weeks for analysis and initial report plus an additional 2 weeks for the final reporting of results, beginning from the agreed date for the commencement of analysis;

(e) sample analysis by technique selected by the participant or from the Recommended Operating Procedures for Sampling and Analysis in the Verification of Chemical Disarmament (1994 Edition of the “Finnish Blue Books”) may be used at participants' discretion;

(f) the results are reported to the Secretariat, and

(g) the results are analysed by the Secretariat. For laboratories seeking designation the results will be circulated to all Member States. Laboratories opting to participate on a self-assessment basis will be provided with their results in confidence.

7. Reports by participants should include:

(a) results of analysis to include identification of all analytes deemed relevant to the CWC with relevance to be defined by the participant;

(b) all evidence/data used for identification, (e.g. properties measured, spectra, chromatographic method, etc.);

(c) a description of sample preparation procedures used in sufficient detail for evaluation (this could be sent in a follow-on report); and

(d) a description of any problems encountered.

8. The report by the Secretariat should:

(a) be concise and accurate;

(b) include a description of the sample preparation;

(d) for laboratories seeking designation, contain a table of results showing reported results; and

(e) contain a statement to the individual participant as to its performance.

9. All other information reported to the Secretariat is for its information only.

- - - o - - -