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-2018-03
1. Overview of Verification Round
PC-2018-03 included 65 Level 0 and 1 investigations on 9 criteria. The selected criteria were either
those that lent themselves well to Level 0 investigations or those for which demonstration ofconformance is difficult. All geographies and manufacturers with products active on the EPEAT
Registry were eligible for inclusion in this Round. Criteria which were investigated during this Roundincluded:•

4.1.3.1- Required- Reporting on amount of mercury used in light sources•

4.1.3.3- Optional- Elimination of intentionally added mercury used in light sources•

4.3.1.1- Required- Identification of materials with special handling needs•

4.4.1.1- Required- Availability of additional 3 year warranty or service agreement•

4.5.2.1- Optional- Renewable energy accessory available•

4.6.1.1- Required- Provision of product take back service•

4.7.1.1- Required- Demonstration of corporate environmental policy consistent with ISO 14001•

4.7.3.1- Required- Corporate report consistent with Performance Track or GRI•

4.7.3.2- Optional- Corporate report based on GRI

Note: Criterion 4.5.2.2, Renewable energy accessory standard, was planned to be investigatedduring this round; however it was dropped from the round as no manufacturers were claiming it.
Criteria 4.4.1.1, 4.5.2.1, and 4.7.3.2 were investigated via Level 0 investigation. 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 the Manufacturer is not
asked to submit documentation. If the publicly available information is inconclusive (i.e. was notavailable, 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 this round,
15 Level 0 investigations were assigned, and 12 proceeded to Level 1 investigations following
completion of the Level 0 portion of the round.
Criteria 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.6.1.1, 4.7.1.1, and 4.7.3.1 were investigated via Level 1
investigation after completion of the Level 0 portion of the round. In a Level 1 investigation, an
Auditor assesses Conformance to a criterion by examining information submitted by a
Manufacturer. The Manufacturer is required to provide detailed and accurate information in atimely manner.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03
PC-2018-03 Outcomes Report FINAL

Page 1
December 2018

2. Summary of Outcomes
The following is a summary of Outcomes from this round:
65 investigations assigned
4 investigations cancelled
15 investigations at Level 0
12 Level 0 investigations Inconclusive and moved to Level 1
39 decisions of Conformance
22 decisions of Nonconformance

Chart 1. Overall Conformance Status for PC2018-03 (as a percentage of total
investigations)
6%

34%
60%

Conformance

Nonconformance

Cancelled

Chart 2. Reasons for Nonconformance

9

Demonstrated nonconformance
Insufficient documentation
to demonstrate
conformance8

No documentation provided

5

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03

Page 2
December 2018

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.3.1.1 Required—Identification of materials with special handling needs
This criterion requires manufacturers to identify the presence and location of materials with special
handling needs (typically, those that appear in the EU WEEE Directive). Manufacturers are advised
to keep their disassembly reports for products up-to-date, and ensure that any materials submitted
as evidence can demonstrate both the presence and location of such materials.
Criterion 4.6.1.1 Required—Provision of product take-back service
This is a complex criterion with many requirements to demonstrate conformance. Manufacturers
should be able to identify any recyclers associated with the take back program and demonstrate abusiness relationship with them. Any costs to the consumer associated with the take back program
should also be disclosed.
Criterion 4.7.1.1 Required—Demonstration of corporate environmental policy consistent with ISO
14001
This criterion requires the manufacturer to demonstrate that their written corporate environmental
policy is consistent with all aspects of the requirements laid out in the environmental policy sectionof ISO 14001. Manufacturers should ensure that they are able demonstrate how their written
environmental policy meets the requirements of the environmental policy section of ISO 14001.

3. 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 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.

4. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
The EPEAT Program will begin verification to IEEE 1680.1 2018 in the first half of 2019.
Conformity Sample Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds will be conducted according to the guidance provided in the
Conformity Sample Packets posted on www.epeat.net under “Key Documents” in My Account.
Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03

Page 3
December 2018

5. Investigations Table

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

Product

Country

Product
Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action Taken

Action S.A.

SIERRA 500X
ES01

PolandDesktops

4.7.3.2

Optional

Corporate report basedon GRI

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared by Manufacturer.

digital computer

AscentDesktop - DXXXXBrazilDesktops

4.5.2.1

Optional

Renewable energy
accessory available

No documentation
provided

Other - Description: Administrativeerror

HP Inc.

ProDisplay
P232 23-inch
MonitorTaiwanMonitors

4.5.2.1

Optional

Renewable energy
accessory available

No documentation
provided

Other - Description:
Manufacturer corrected registrydeclaration

HP Inc.

24w 23.8-inch
Display

United States

Monitors

4.4.1.1

Required

Availability of additional 3
year warranty or service
agreement

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Inida

M500 2000
IN500.01

Lithuania

Desktops

4.7.3.2

Optional

Corporate report basedon GRI

No documentation
provided

Other - Description:
Administrative error

NTT System S.A.

NTT Business
W 504M

PolandDesktops

4.4.1.1

Required

Availability of additional 3
year warranty or service
agreement

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficient evidence,
Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate conformance.

Positivo
Tecnologia S.A.

Positivo
Master A2100

BrazilIntegrated
Desktop
Computers

4.7.3.2

Optional

Corporate report basedon GRI

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

Algoritmos
Procesos yDisenos, S.A.

ALDA CE

Spain

Desktops

4.7.1.1

Required

Demonstration of
corporate environmental
policy consistent with ISO
14001

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficient evidence,
Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate conformance.

Arquimedes
Automacao eInformatica Ltda

Corporativo A

BrazilDesktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03

Page 4
December 2018

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

Product

Country

Product
Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action Taken

CIARA-TECH

ASUS UN45

CanadaDesktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Corporativo
Lanix, S.A. de C.V

Neuron R II

MexicoNotebooks

4.1.3.3

Optional

Elimination of
intentionally added
mercury used in lightsources

No documentation
provided

Other - Description:
Manufacturer did not take corrective
action, and CAB archived the productCorporativo
Lanix, S.A. de C.V

LX900T

MexicoMonitors

4.7.3.1

Required

Corporate reportconsistent with
Performance Track or GRI

No documentation
provided

Other - Description:
Insufficient evidence was provided tore-establish conformance. CAB
archived the Manufacturer’s products.

Dell, Inc.

XPS 13-9365

SwedenNotebooks

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

Durabook
Americas Inc.

S15AB

United States

Notebooks

4.7.3.1

Required

Corporate reportconsistent with
Performance Track or GRI

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

HowardTechnology
Solutions

H11AKB

United States

Desktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

Other - Description:
Product was archived as a result of an
earlier corrective action

Komparsa UAB

S1700F

LatviaDesktops

4.7.3.1

Required

Corporate reportconsistent with
Performance Track or GRI

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficient evidence,
Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate conformance.

Login
Informatica

Login L4500

BrazilDesktops

4.7.3.1

Required

Corporate reportconsistent with
Performance Track or GRI

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficient evidence,
Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate conformance.

TH ALPLAST

S27

PolandDesktops

4.7.3.1

Required

Corporate reportconsistent with
Performance Track or GRI

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Other - Description:
Manufacturer did not take corrective
action, and CAB archived all active
products

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03

Page 5
December 2018

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

Product

Country

Product
Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action Taken

Toshiba

Tecra X40-D
PT472C

CanadaNotebooks

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

TPV Technology
Limited

E2475SWQE

Netherlands

Monitors

4.6.1.1

Required

Provision of product takeback service

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

Transource

MIR-Q900S

United States

Desktops

4.6.1.1

Required

Provision of product takeback service

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficient evidence,
Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate conformance.

ViewSonic
Corporation

CDX5552
VS16172

CanadaMonitors

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials
with special handlingneeds

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes made resulting inconformance.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-03

Page 6
December 2018

6. 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 the
declarations 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 the
Manufacturer 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 the
Manufacturer’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 the
Manufacturer’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-2018-03

Page 7
December 2018