The OPCW answers (or not) questions about the destruction of Syrian Chemicals in the Med

 
By Chrisa Wilkens
 
The answers below were sent on the 8^th of July from Michael Luhan, Spokesman and Head of the Media & Public Affairs Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
 
 
1.When and where will the process of dismantling the chemical weapons happen?  
 
The Cape Ray should begin neutralization operations very shortly. It’s operational movements will take place in the Mediterranean but where exactly is the prerogative of the U.S. navy. In general, the Cape Ray will follow wherever the best weather and calmest seas prevail at a given time in order to allow the neutralization operations to continue round the clock and complete destruction of the materials as soon as possible.

[Note that according to a press release by the US Department of Defense the neutralization process began on the 7th of July].
 
 
2. How much time will it take?
 
The U.S. estimates all of the chemicals should be neutralised within 60 days
 
 
3. Which techniques will be used?
 
Some Priority 1 chemicals will be destroyed through a two-step process. The first step, hydrolysis, will occur at sea on board the MV Cape Ray. The chemicals will not be dumped or buried in the sea at any stage, and therefore no chemicals will be released  into the environment. The US Department of Defense has installed two Field Deployable Hydrolysis Systems [PDF – 3.24 MB] (FDHS) on board the MV Cape Ray, which have been designed on the basis of technology used over the past four decades in the US chemical weapons destruction programme to hydrolyse chemical warfare agents. The FDHS uses water, sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and heat to hydrolyse the chemicals with 99.9 percent effectiveness. All of the effluent resulting from the hydrolysis process will be safely stored on board the MV Cape Ray.
The Cape Ray will be constantly on the move in the Mediterranean during the neutralisation operations to where   weather and sea conditions are the calmest, which will reduce risks for the operational crew members and allow the neutralisation to continue.
 
 
4. Have some pre-tests for the operation in Cape Ray or another ship already been performed and what are the results?
 
Yes, the Field Deployable Hydrolysis Systems aboard the Cape Ray were tested at sea off the coast of the United States before departing for the Mediterranean. OPCW experts determined that the technology on the Cape Ray met the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy the Syrian chemicals in a manner that assigned the ‘highest priority’ to the safety and people and the environment.
 
 
5. What is the exact composition of these chemical weapons?

The Syrian chemical warfare programme is based primarily on binary systems which means two toxic substances have to be brought together to create a highly toxic chemical warfare agent. It is these less toxic substances, comprising the bulk of the chemicals, which are being removed from Syria aboard Danish and Norwegian cargo vessels (MV Ark Futura and MV Taiko, respectively). Such toxic chemicals are routinely transported around the world and there are specific laws and regulations in place regarding their safe transportation.

The chemicals are stored in bulk containers and drums; they are not contained within bombs, shells or warheads and there are no explosives associated with them. Additional chemicals used in the Syrian chemical warfare programme are also being removed from Syria in the same way. A quantity of mustard agent has also been removed. While this is a ready-to-use chemical warfare agent, it is also stored in bulk containers and drums, not in munitions.
 

6. Which are the exact quantities of the chemicals that were transferred to Italy, via Ark Futura?
 
560 metric tonnes of “Priority 1” chemicals (sulfur mustard and a binary precursor for Sarin – all in liquid form and stored in bulk containers)
 
 
7.  Is there a possibility that they have been mixed with other substances from Assad’s regime?
 
Your question makes no sense as it is formulated
 
 
8. Why has the Mediterranean Sea been chosen for this operation?
 
The choice of the Mediterranean was made by the United States in consultation with the OPCW. But it should be pointed out that the U.S. has maintained an impeccable record of safety and security in its chemical weapons destruction programme. To date, that programme has destroyed some 25,000 metric tonnes of the same kinds of chemical warfare agents in the U.S. arsenal – nearly 50 times the amount on the Cape Ray – without a single fatality, injury or environmental incident, over a period stretching back decades.
 
 
9. What are the possible dangers for Mediterranean flora and fauna?

(no response)
 

10. Why there is nearly no information in the public about the process?
 
This is simply not true. How much more information on this operation must we make available via our website and the media to suffice. We have answered each and every question put to us about this operation.
 
 
12. It’s the first time that hydrolysis of chemical weapon will take place at sea. Can you say loudly and clearly that it will be 100% safe operation?
 
We have said, clearly and repeatedly now, that no chemicals that have been loaded on to the Cape Ray for destruction, or the effluent from their destruction, will be dumped or leaked into the Mediterranean or any other sea.
 

13. In case of an accident who will take the responsibility?
 
As already announced in previous occasions, the OPCW, like the UN, bears no responsibility in case of any chemical accident. In particular in respect of the neutralisation onboard the Cape Ray, the US Navy assumes all liabilities which would arise in case of an accident. As it has been previously observed, this is a multilateral endeavour in which the OPCW’s primary role is limited to the verification of the full completion of the destruction of chemical weapons of the Syrian Arab Republic in accordance with the CWC.  As a result, in case of a chemical accident the vessels would take responsibility for their own actions.
 
This understanding is also reflected in a letter from the UN Secretary General, dated 17 December 2013, to the President of the UN Security Council which states:

“Once on board the maritime vessels, relevant Member States will assume their respective responsibilities through the multilateral legal framework established by the Security Council in its resolution 2118 (2013) and by the decisions of the OPCW Executive Council.”

This understanding is also reflected in the The Plan for Destruction of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Outside the Territory of the SAR, developed in close consultation with the Assisting States Parties:

“With respect to their responsibilities, the States Parties assisting in the destruction of  Syrian chemical weapons, transporting Syrian chemical weapons from the territory of  the Syrian Arab Republic to a State Party hosting destruction activities, or hosting destruction activities on their territory (“Assisting States Parties”) have arrived at  certain common understandings. Accordingly, it is recognised that the United Nations Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) and the relevant Executive Council  decisions establish a multilateral legal framework for the activities of the Assisting States Parties. The responsibilities of the Assisting States Parties, including liability for claims will be determined according to the circumstances, to the extent of their  respective roles, and in light of the purposes of resolution 2118 (2013) and applicable  Council decisions. Should an unexpected contingency arise in this regard, the Assisting States Parties could raise the situation to the United Nations Security Council or the OPCW Executive Council. An exchange of letters on this matter took  place between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the  United Nations Security Council on 11 December 2013.”

As already noted, under Article IV, paragraph 10 of the Chemical Weapons Convention: “Each State Party, during transportation, sampling, storage and destruction of chemical weapons, shall assign the highest priority to ensuring the safety of people and to protecting the environment. (…)”
 
Although this obligation would normally apply to a possessor State Party who is required  to destroy its own chemical weapons, in the present case, by virtue of a decision of the Executive Council of the OPCW (namely para. 12 of EC-M-34/DEC.1, dated 15 November 2013), this obligation was transferred to the Assisting States Parties hosting destruction activities.
 
In addition to being subject to the CWC and the decisions of its governing bodies, the Assisting States Parties also have responsibilities under international law – namely, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, consequently the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

 
14. In which harbor will Cape Ray go in case of an accident or other problems like bad weather conditions?
 
The United States has accepted an offer from Croatia for use of a port on its coast if needed for repairs, resupply or any other contingency
 

15. Is there a Plan B in case of an accident?

As is the case at all chemical weapons destruction facilities, and in line with the standards of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a team of experts trained to respond to chemical spillage or contamination will be on the MV Cape Ray to immediately contain any incidents. It is not uncommon that minor incidents of spillage occur at such facilities, but redundant measures have been installed on the MV Cape Ray to make it virtually impossible for any chemicals, or even contaminated air, to escape from the ship. This was ascertained by the OPCW before the MV Cape Ray set sail for the Mediterranean.