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 PC-2017-01
1. Overview of Verification Round
Verification Round PC-2017-01 was a Level 2 / 3 testing round. Eight products were randomly
chosen from a list of manufacturers that had not yet been Level 2 / 3 tested. Each product waspurchased and investigated for all criteria listed in the table below which were being claimed.
CriterionLevel 2Level 3XXXX

4.1.8.1Required – Compliance with provisions of European RoHS
Directive
Optional – Elimination of intentionally added hexavalentchromium
Optional – Large parts free of PVC

X

X

4.3.1.3

Required – Easy disassembly of external enclosures

X

4.3.1.5

Required – Identification and removal of components
containing hazardous materials

X

4.3.1.7

Optional – Molded/glued in metal eliminated or removableX

4.3.1.9

Optional – Minimum 90% reusable / recyclable

X

4.8.2.1

Required – Separable packing materials

X

4.8.2.2

Optional – Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeledX

4.1.1.1
4.1.5.1

Description of Criterion

In total, 58 investigations were performed on nine criteria where 32 investigations were on Required
criteria and 26 were on Optional criteria. Verification Round PC-2017-01 touched the following
areas of the EPEAT Registry:Eight Manufacturers had products investigated from three countries: United States, Canada,and Germany.

Nine criteria out of the 51 criteria contained in IEEE 1680.1-2009 were investigated.

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:58 investigations completed

52 decisions of Conformance6 decisions of Non-Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-01

Page 1January 2018

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status for
PC-2017-01 (percent of total investigations)10%90%
Conformance

Non-Conformance

Figure 2: Reasons for Non-Conformance

24

Product was not able to be obtained

Demonstrated Non-Conformance

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations that were planned and which investigations
resulted in a decision of Non-Conformance.
TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion
4.1.1.1
4.1.5.1
4.1.8.1

Description

Investigations

Non-Conformant

Compliance with provisions ofEuropean RoHS Directive

81

Elimination of intentionally added
hexavalent chromium

6060

Required
Optional
Optional

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-01

Large parts free of PVC

Page 2January 2018

4.3.1.3

RequiredEasy disassembly of external
enclosure81

4.3.1.5

Required

Identification and removal ofcomponents containing hazardous
materials

81

4.3.1.7

Optional

Molded/glued in metal eliminatedor removable

61

4.3.1.9

Optional

Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable

40

4.8.2.1

Required

Separable packing materials

814.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable andplastics labeled

41

3. Key Lessons
In one case, a product was unable to be obtained by the Auditor / Lab which resulted in four NonConformances. If a product is chosen from the EPEAT Registry to be Level 2 / 3 tested, the Auditor
and / or Manufacturer must make every effort to procure the product for testing. Failure to do sowill result in Non-Conformances for all criteria planned for investigation and removal of the productfrom the EPEAT Registry.
Criterion 4.3.1.7 Optional – Molded/glued in metal eliminated or removable
If molded or glued in metal is used with plastic, in order to facilitate recycling, it must be able to beremoved by one person with common tools. Inability to remove the metal will result in a NonConformance.
Criterion 4.8.2.2 Optional – Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeledThis criterion requires that plastics be labeled appropriately. Failure to label the plastics hinders
recycling and will result in a Non-Conformance. In addition, although the 90% recyclability of thepackaging is not required to be calculated during Level 2 / 3 investigations, Polystyrene foam is notconsidered recyclable in the United States. Use of non-recyclable materials over 10% of the total
weigh of the packaging will result in a Non-Conformance when this aspect of the criterion isinvestigated.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:
You can find more guidance and examples of conformance documents in the Conformity Sample
Packets located in “Key Documents” under My Account. Go to epeat.net to log in.
Initial response to Auditors:
When contacted regarding participation in a Verification Round, Manufacturers should respond tothe Auditor as soon as possible to let them know they are communicating with the correct person orto inform them of the correct contact. This also helps the Auditor know that the e-mail address isvalid.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-01

Page 3January 2018

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:
An EPEAT Auditor training will be held in March 2018 in Portland, Oregon. While the EPEAT Auditor
training was created for Conformity Assurance Auditors, Manufacturers may also find this training
useful to better understand how to efficiently meet Verification Requirements of the standards. For
more information please contact Erin Gately at erin.gately@greenelectronicscouncil.org.
Conformity Sample Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance
provided in the Conformity Sample Packets posted on www.epeat.net under “Key Documents” inMy Account.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-01

Page 4January 2018

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

Cybertron
International, Inc.

CSDI3

UnitedStates

Desktops

4.1.1.1

Cybertron
International, Inc.

CSDI3

UnitedStates

Desktops

Cybertron
International, Inc.

CSDI3

UnitedStates

CybertronInternational, Inc.

CSDI3

GammatechComputer Corporation
Ace Computers

Required

Required – Compliance with
provisions of European RoHS
Directive

Product was not able to be obtained

Product Archived by
Manufacturer

4.3.1.3

Required

Required – Easy disassembly of
external enclosures

Product was not able to be obtained

Product Archived by
Manufacturer

Desktops

4.3.1.5

Required

Required – Identification andremoval of components containing
hazardous materials

Product was not able to be obtained

Product Archived by
Manufacturer

UnitedStates

Desktops

4.8.2.1

Required

Required – Separable packingmaterials

Product was not able to be obtained

Product Archived by
Manufacturer

R11United
StatesTablets/Slates

4.3.1.7

Optional

Optional – Molded/glued in metaleliminated or removable

Demonstrated non-conformance glued in metal not easily removable

Criterion undeclaredby Manufacturer

VisionXIQ170TS

UnitedStates

Desktops

4.8.2.2

Optional

Optional – Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Demonstrated non-conformance plastic bag not marked

Product Archived by
Manufacturer

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-01

Corrective Action
TakenPage 5DATE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 are
given 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 four-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 PC-2017-01

Page 6
January 2018