Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

P41
Issue 1 Rev 0

Outcomes Report

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

OUTCOMES REPORTEPEAT VERIFICATION ROUND TV-2016-01
1. Overview of Verification Round
Eleven Level 1 investigations were performed in Verification Round TV-2016-01 on criteria that had
not been verified previously. Of the criteria investigated, seven were Required and four wereOptional. These criteria were chosen randomly from a list of all IEEE 1680.3 products in the EPEATRegistry. No Participating Manufacturer was subject to more than six investigations. Round TV-201601 touched the following areas of the EPEAT Registry:2 Manufacturers were investigated in the Round.

Products were chosen from one country (United States).



11 criteria which had never been verified before out of 53 criteria in IEEE 1680.3-2012 wereverified.

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:•

11 investigations completed•

9 decisions of Conformance•

2 decisions of Non-Conformance
Figure 1:

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status forTV-2016-01(as percentage of total investigations)18%

82%
Conformance (9)Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2016-01

Non-Conformance (2)Page 1
October 2016

Figure 2:

Non-Conformance Reason(as a percentage of Non-Conformances)
100%

No documentation provided (2)Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations completed and which investigations wereNon-Conformances.
TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

Description

Investigations

NonConformances

10

Required

Declaration of postconsumer recycledplastic content

104.2.2.1

Required

Declaration of biobased plastic
materials content

4.2.3.1

Required

Declaration of product weight

100

Optional

One recyclable plastic type per rigid
plastic part >25 g1

4.3.2.1
4.4.2.1

RequiredService information readily available

10

4.4.3.1

Required

Early failure process

1011

RequiredCompliance with current ENERGY STAR
specification

11

4.5.1.2

Optional

Additional On Mode performanceexceeding ENERGY STAR

4.5.2.3

Optional

Automatic switch to sleep mode

10

10

Optional

Third-party certified environmental
management system for design andmanufacturing organizations

10RequiredElimination of elemental chlorine as ableaching agent in packaging material

112

4.2.1.1

4.5.1.1

4.7.1.2
4.8.1.2

Required orOptional

Total

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2016-01

Page 2October 2016

3. Key Lessons
Changes to ENERGY STAR Specifications:Meeting the current version of ENERGY STAR is a requirement of EPEAT. When a new version ofENERGY STAR goes into effect, all products on the EPEAT Registry should be reviewed to see if theymeet the new specifications. If they do not, those products should be Archived immediately.
Failure to do so could result in a Non-Conformance.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Products “Active” on the EPEAT Registry:
All Active products on the EPEAT Registry are subject to Verification. When products reach their endof life, Manufacturers should remove the products from the EPEAT Registry. If a product which is
Active on the EPEAT Registry has gone end of life and a Manufacturer cannot obtain required
evidence due to the age of the product, it would still be considered a Non-Conformance.
Initial response to Auditors:
When contacted regarding participation in a Verification Round, Manufacturers should respond to
the Auditor as soon as possible to let them know they are communicating with the correct person or
to inform them of the correct contact. This also helps the Auditor know that the e-mail address isvalid.
Conformance of products that may share similar traits and/or supply chains:
If a Non-Conformance is found for a particular criterion and product, Manufacturers should be
prepared to determine if other products on the EPEAT Registry are similarly impacted due to use ofsimilar materials and/or supply chains, and develop corrective action plans to address the future
conformance of these other products.

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
All 2016 Verification Rounds for Televisions have been completed. Planning for 2017 Verification
Rounds has not yet begun.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2016-01

Page 3October 2016

6. Investigations Table

TABLE 2: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

ProductCountry

Product
Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding Description

Corrective Action
Taken

Samsung
Electronics

UN48H4005AF

UnitedStatesTV

4.5.1.1

RequiredCompliance with currentENERGY STAR specification

No information provided
besides Manufacturer
declaration.

Product archived
by Manufacturer.

Samsung
Electronics

UN40HU6950F

UnitedStatesTV

4.5.1.2

Optional

Additional On Mode
performance exceeding
ENERGY STAR

No information provided
besides Manufacturer
declaration.

Product archived
by Manufacturer.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2016-01

Page 4October 2016

7. BackgroundTo assure the credibility of the EPEAT Registry, verification of the claims by Participating
Manufacturers are rigorous, independent and transparent. Verification is conducted according topolicies and procedures described in documents provided on www.epeat.net. Manufacturers aregiven no forewarning that their products will be verified, and verification is performed based on thedeclarations as they are in the Registry at the time the Verification Round begins.
Investigations are performed by expert technical contractors called Auditors working for a
Conformity Assurance Body approved by the Green Electronics Council (GEC). Auditors are free ofconflicts of interest, and their recommended decisions are reviewed and finalized by a five-person
panel of independent technical experts (called the Conformity Decision Panel) who are also
contractors free of conflicts of interest. Decisions of conformity by the Conformity Decision Panelare made blind to the identity of the products and companies they are judging, based only on
evidence collected and analyzed by Auditors. A serious consequence of receiving a NonConformance is that it is published publicly in an Outcomes Report, for purchasers, competitors, andothers to see.
In a Level 0 investigation, an Auditor assesses Conformance to a criterion by examining publicly
available information only – no products are obtained for inspection or testing, and theManufacturer is not asked to submit documentation. If the publicly available information isinconclusive (i.e. was not available, could not be found from public sources, or did not provide
enough details to determine conformance), the Auditor may be instructed to proceed with a
Level 1 investigation.



In a Level 1 investigation, an Auditor assess Conformance to a criterion by examining
information submitted by a Manufacturer. The Manufacturer is required to provide detailed andaccurate information in a timely manner.

In Level 2 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without theManufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product disassembled and inspected toassess conformance with one or more criteria.

In Level 3 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without theManufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product analytically tested to assess
conformance with one or more criteria.

Manufacturers must correct Non-Conformances, either by bringing the product into Conformance,by un-declaring the criterion until Conformance is achieved, or by removing the product from theRegistry. The Green Electronics Council also requires that Manufacturers examine other registeredproducts to determine if their declarations should be corrected as well. If a Manufacturer corrects
the Non-Conformance by un-declaring the criterion and the criterion is an optional criterion, theylose that point, and possibly the product drops a tier. If it is a required criterion, they must archive
the product. If it is a required corporate criterion, they must archive all of their registered products.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2016-01

Page 5October 2016