1. Summary

1.1 Consideration of inspection aims, the type of information declared
and the characteristics of typical DOC/PSF plant sites, leads to the conclusion
that routine inspections of DOC/PSF plant sites will be consistency checks
rather than the more accurate quantitative verification associated with routine
Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 facility inspections.

2. Inspection Aims

2.1 According to CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 14, the inspection team (IT)
is tasked to verify that current plant site activities are consistent with
information provided in declarations, and the absence of Schedule 1 chemicals.

3. Declaration obligations

3.1 In order to achieve the first objective, namely to verify consistency
of current plant site activities with those declared, the general nature of
the information declared must be considered, in particular: the approximate
number of plants producing the DOC/PSF chemicals; the approximate aggregate
amount of production of the DOC/PSF chemicals as specified by ranges; and
the use of broad product groups codes to describe the main activities of the
plant site rather than identifying specific chemicals per se.

4. Characteristics of DOC/PSF Plant sites

4.1 In the development of appropriate inspection procedures to achieve
the above inspection aims within the specified timeframe, the characteristics
of typical DOC/PSF plant sites need to be considered.

4.2 DOC/PSF plant sites subject to routine inspection will range from
relatively small plant sites producing 200 tonnes of organic chemicals per
year (perhaps a family operated business producing only one DOC in only one
reaction vessel) to very large plant sites comprising many production plants
producing many thousands of tonnes of chemicals per annum.

4.3 The total production in any given year will inevitably depend on
market demand. In some years overall production may be substantially less
than the theoretical production capacity of the plant site, if product demand
is absent. Likewise, the number of production plants producing the various
PSF chemicals and other DOC chemicals in a particular year will also vary.
Moreover, many plant sites will operate multi-purpose production plants capable
of producing, interchangeably, a range of PSF and DOC chemicals. Therefore,
depending on demand, a particular multipurpose plant may produce PSF chemicals
for some parts of the year, other DOCs for some parts of the year, and may
be idle for the remainder of the year.

4.4 It follows that the activities taking place at the plant site on
the day of a DOC/PSF inspection may not be identical to the information provided
in the annual declaration for the previous year. It was for this reason
that CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 4(d) required information on The approximate
number of plants producing the chemicals specified in paragraph 1 in the plant
site.

5. Inspection Procedures

5.1 According to CWC VA Part IX Paragraphs 15 to 19, the inspection
aims may be achieved through a range of procedures, including managed access
to the declared production plants, access to records where the inspected State
Party (ISP) and IT agree that such access will assist in achieving the objectives
of the inspection, and sampling and analysis to check for undeclared scheduled
chemicals, usually performed on-site.

5.2 The IT may seek access to other parts of the plant site to clarify
any ambiguities arising during the inspection, with the extent of access to
be agreed by the IT and ISP. In the case of ambiguities associated with on-site
analysis of samples, samples may be analysed in a designated off-site laboratory,
subject to the agreement of the ISP.

5.3 According to CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 20, the duration of the DOC/PSF
inspections is 24 hours, unless an extension is agreed by the IT and ISP.

6. Practical Considerations

6.1 Pre-inspection briefing

6.1.1 A well-prepared pre-inspection brief to provide the IT with a general
overview of the various production activities taking place at the plant site
is critical. This is especially important given the limited information on
main activities declared annually, in accordance with draft declaration
handbook. Any substantial differences between current production activities
and the information provided on production in the previous calendar year,
as provided in the annual declaration, should also be indicated by a facility
representative during the pre-inspection briefing.

6.2 Verifying Consistency

6.2.1 In accordance with CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 14, the inspection aims
to verify that activities are consistent with the information to be
provided in declarations. Visual inspection of the declared plant will,
therefore, form an integral part of the inspection process. There is no mandate
under the CWC for the IT to accurately determine the total quantities of DOC/PSF
chemicals actually produced, as this would clearly go beyond what is necessary
to verify consistency with the production range declared. In particular,
all that is required is to check that the production is within the declared
range, not calculate the actual production quantities.

6.2.2 Estimating the production range must suffice. Even when the actual
production is close to a range cross-over (eg, 1,000 tonnes and 10,000 tonnes
for DOC plant sites, and 200 tonnes, 1,000 tonnes and 10,000 tonnes for PSF
plants) a detailed calculation of the quantities of chemicals actually produced
will be much less important than the qualitative / consistency checks, and
checking for absence of Schedule 1 chemicals. Moreover, given the size and
complexity of some the PSF/DOC plant sites, and the limited time available
to the IT, it would clearly not be possible to accurately check production
quantities.

6.2.3 In addition, inspectors will need to know the types of chemicals
being produced on the plant site, in order to confirm the consistency of the
product group codes being reported in the declaration. This should prove
of no concern to facility representatives, however, as such information is
readily available to customers through company brochures, advertising material,
websites, etc.

6.3 Access to Records

6.3.1 Simple visual inspection of the engineering capacity of a plant
can only provide an estimate of maximum production capacity, and cannot account
for possible differences in production ranges declared for the preceding year.
In such instances, a combination of visual inspection plus access to limited
production records may prove useful in confirming annual production quantities
which appear less than the maximum production capacity of the plant site.

6.3.2 In accordance with CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 18, the IT may have
access to records when the ISP and IT agree that such access will assist in
achieving the objectives of the inspection (this indicates that the ISP is
required to offer access to records unless the ISP can demonstrate that the
access to records will not assist in achieving the objectives of the inspection).
However, this does not mean that the ISP is obliged to provide access to sensitive
production records. Access to records may be on a managed access basis, and
may be limited to: certain parts of the production records; records of typical
production schedules; or records on raw materials purchase and/or usage.
Moreover, the IT will not need to access to sensitive financial, sales and
purchase data.

6.3.3 During recent practice inspections, access has been provided to
different types of records to demonstrate that the actual production levels
are consistent with the previous years declaration. For example, access
to selected past monthly production reconciliation statements, with concomitant
extrapolation for the full year, has proved useful in estimating annual production
quantities. Similarly, information on total reaction vessel capacity, basic
process-flow information and records related to the purchases of raw materials
have also proved helpful in verifying consistency with the declaration.

6.3.4 Importantly neither the actual production estimates nor the name
of the chemicals being produced at the plant site need to be included in the
Preliminary Factual Finding (PFF) or Final Inspection Report (FIR). Rather
the PFF/FIR should simply reference the method by which the IT was able to
confirm that plant site activities at the time of the inspection were consistent
with the production range and product group codes declared.

6.4 Sampling and Analysis

6.4.1 Although unlikely to form part of the standard inspection procedures
for DOC/PSF inspections, especially given the timeframes for on-site activities,
the IT may wish to request sampling and analysis be undertaken, in accordance
with CWC VA Part IX Paragraph 19. Sampling and analysis is a simple way of
providing assurance that no Schedule chemicals are being produced at the plant
site. It should be noted that analysis may be undertaken to check for the
absence of undeclared Scheduled chemicals (ie. not just Schedule 1 chemicals).
If undeclared Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 chemicals are detected, the ISP would
need to demonstrate that quantities are below any declaration thresholds.

6.5 Absence of Schedule 1 chemicals

6.5.1 The particular inspection aim of absence of Schedule 1 chemicals,
will need to be accomplished by a number of considerations, including:

• engineering design (does the facility have the appropriate production
  equipment to perform the relevant types of production processes, eg chlorination,
  fluorination, esterification, phosphorylation);
• safety and medical features - is the facility capable of producing hazardous
  chemicals, including highly corrosive or highly toxic chemicals;
• raw materials - does the site have raw materials (including unscheduled
  chemicals) that could be used for the production of Schedule 1 chemicals
  (for example, chemicals including sodium sulphide, 2-chloroethanol, hydrogen
  chloride fall in this category).

6.5.2 If the plant site has other features, for example an unusually high
level of security, this may also result in the inspection team requesting
clarification (including access to other parts of the plant site) in accordance
with CWC VA Part II Paragraph 51, or requesting access to additional records.
Sampling and analysis may be particularly appropriate if dual purpose precursors
are stored at the plant site, or if there are indications that there may have
been recent production of Schedule 1 chemicals.

6.6 Inspection Reports

6.6.1 Both the Preliminary Factual Findings Report and the Final Inspection
Report should be short, concise reports focussed on confirming whether the
IT was able to accomplish the inspection aims and fulfil the inspection mandate.
An appropriate template for the reports needs to be developed which avoids
the necessity for comprehensive recording of on-site activities and production
processes, and minimises repetition. Such reports could be limited to 2 to
3 pages, possibly in the form a of check-list aimed at confirming the consistency
of on-site activities with those reported in the annual declaration (eg approximate
number of plants, declaration range and product codes, and the absence of
Schedule 1 chemicals), the methods used by the IT to fulfil the inspection
mandate, and with provisions made for highlighting uncertainties or issues
that require further attention.

7. Concluding Comments

7.1 Unlike routine industry inspections of Schedule 1 and Schedule
2 facilities, the objective of a routine DOC/PSF inspection does not include
accurately verifying the total production of particular DOC/PSF chemicals,
so will require a more qualitative and flexible verification approach to achieve
the inspection aims.

7.2 A flexible approach using managed access to production plants and
less sensitive records, and in some circumstances on-site analysis (rapid
screening for presence / absence of any/all scheduled chemicals) should enable
the ISP to demonstrate that the production of DOCs within the plant site is
within the range declared, and also the absence of undeclared Schedule 1 chemicals.
Furthermore, a flexible co-operative approach taken by the ISP and IT should
enable the achievement of these objectives:

• without creating an unnecessary burden on the plant site;
• without access to sensitive technical information on production processes;
  and
• without access to sensitive commercial information.

7.3 Over time, the conduct of routine inspections to DOC/PSF plant
sites will result in increased transparency of chemical production activities
and provide an increasing level of assurance that DOC/PSF plant sites are
not being misused for purposes prohibited by the Convention, especially if
selection methodologies are adopted that result in an equitable geographic
distribution of DOC/PSF inspections.

[ASNO Main Page]