Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

Outcomes Report

P41
Issue 1 Rev 0

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-2016-01
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides the detailed results of EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01. This Roundfocused on randomly chosen criteria and randomly chosen products via Level 1 investigations. Theproducts and criteria were selected as follows:• All products that were active in the Registry were eligible for inclusion, and were chosen firstthrough a random selection process.
•All criteria are eligible for inclusion, and were chosen randomly for each selected product.

•All geographies and Manufacturers were eligible for inclusion.

• Exception is as follows: If a criterion is randomly selected for a product and that product has
been investigated against that criterion in the last six months, a new criterion will be randomly
selected for the product.
•No Manufacturer was subject to more than four investigations during this Round.

Eighty-four Investigations were conducted on 40 criteria and 47 of these investigations were ofrequired criteria and 37 were of optional criteria. Using a random selection process encourages
unbiased representation of the Registry to be examined in a single Verification Round, without
partiality or preference in the selection process. In this regard, Round PC-2016-01 touched thefollowing areas of the EPEAT Registry:
Figure 1:

29 Manufacturers were investigated in the Round.

40 criteria out of 51 criteria in IEEE 1680.1-2009.

27 out of 43 countries in the Registry – see Figure 1

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round are:
 84 investigations completed
 63 decisions of Conformance 16 decisions of Non-Conformance – see2 below
 5 investigations cancelled due to 2 manufacturers
archiving their products in the time between when theRound snapshot was taken and the launch of theRound.
Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 1
August 2016

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations that were planned, cancelled and whichinvestigations were Non-Conformances.

TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

Description

PlannedCancelled

NonConformances

4.1.1.1

RequiredCompliance with provisions ofEuropean RoHS Directive311

4.1.2.1

Optional

Elimination of intentionally added
cadmium

411

4.1.3.1

Required

Reporting on amount of mercury usedin light sources100

4.1.3.2

Optional

Low threshold for amount of mercury
used in light sources300

4.1.3.3

Optional

Elimination of intentionally added
mercury used in light sources

200

4.1.4.1

Optional

Elimination of intentionally added leadin certain applications

302

4.1.6.1

Required

Elimination of intentionally added SCCP

401

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 2
August 2016

flame retardants and plasticizers incertain applications
4.1.6.2

Optional

Large plastic parts free of certain flame
retardants classified under European
Council Directive 67/548/EEC

202

4.1.7.1

Optional

Optional – Batteries free of lead,cadmium, and mercury

201

4.2.1.1

Required

Declaration of postconsumer recycledplastic content

200

4.2.2.1

Required

Declaration of renewable/biobased
plastic materials content

200

4.2.3.1

RequiredDeclaration of product weight200

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials with special
handling needs

100

4.3.1.2

Required

Elimination of paints or coatings thatare not compatible with recycling or
reuse

100

4.3.1.3

RequiredEasy disassembly of external enclosure300

4.3.1.4

RequiredMarking of plastic components

100

4.3.1.5

Required

Identification and removal ofcomponents containing hazardous
materials

100

4.3.1.6

Optional

Reduced number of plastic materialtypes

2004.3.1.7

Optional

Molded/glued in metal eliminated orremovable

100

4.3.1.8

Required

Minimum 65% reusable/recyclable

201

4.3.1.9

Optional

Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable

1004.3.2.1

Optional

Manual separation of plastics

200

4.3.2.2

Optional

Marking of plastics

302

4.4.1.1

Required

Availability of additional 3 year
warranty or service agreement100

4.4.2.1

RequiredUpgradeable with common tools

300

4.4.2.2

Optional

Modular design100

4.4.3.1

Optional

Availability of replacement parts

1004.5.1.1

Required

ENERGY STAR410

4.6.1.1

Required

Provision of a product take-back service

100

4.6.2.1

Required

Provision of a rechargeable battery
take-back service

101

4.7.2.1

Required

Self-certified environmental
management system for design andmanufacturing organizations

100

4.7.2.2

Optional

Third-party certified environmental
management system for design andmanufacturing organizations

100

4.7.3.1

Optional

Corporate consistent with Performance
Track or GRI

210

4.7.3.2

Optional

Corporate report based on GRI

201

4.8.1.1

Required

Reduction/elimination of intentionally500

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 3
August 2016

added toxics in packaging
4.8.2.1

Required

Separable packing materials

2004.8.3.1

Required

Declaration of recycled content

412

4.8.3.2

Optional

Minimum postconsumer content
guidelines

300

4.8.4.1

Optional

Provision of take-back program for
packaging301

4.8.5.1

Optional

Documentation of reusable packaging

100

3. Key Lessons
Material marking codes on plastic components greater than 25 grams (criterion 4.3.2.2):
Criterion 4.3.2.2 requires the marking of plastic components greater than 25 grams in accordancewith the provisions of ISO 11469. This is a required criterion, and Manufacturers are encouraged towork closely with their suppliers to determine if the verification requirements can be met. In
particular, ISO 11469 requires reverse angled brackets (the marks “>” and “<”) around the material
marking code and designated abbreviations for polymers, flame retardants, fillers and/orplasticizers. Additionally, Subscribers are encouraged to revisit the Conformity Assurance Protocols
to identify the types of information sought by the Conformity Decision Panel to determineconformance.
Cancelled Investigations:
If a Manufacturer archives a product in the time between when the Round snapshot was taken andthe launch of the Round, the EPEAT Scheme cancels the investigation(s). It would be unfair to makethe Manufacturer perform this work when the product was actually archived before the official startof the Round. Please note that before the start of the Round, the Manufacturer is unaware of which
products were chosen.
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 beprepared 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:
There are four Verification Rounds planned for 2016 for 1680.1 (Computers and Displays). TheseRounds may include Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 investigations.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 4
August 2016

Conformity Assessment Protocols:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance
provided in the Conformity Assessment Protocols posted on www.epeat.net.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 5
August 20165. Investigations Table

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

ProductCountry

ProductTypeCriterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding Description

Corrective Action Taken

Acer Inc.

Veriton X2640G

TaiwanDesktops

4.1.1.1

R

Compliance with provisions ofEuropean RoHS Directive

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

Toshiba

Satellite Pro A50C PS562, PS566,
PS569, PS56D,
PS56H, PS56M

India

Notebooks

4.1.2.1

O

Elimination of intentionally added
cadmiumNo documentation provided

Manufacturer undeclared theNon-Conformant criterion

TPV TechnologyLimitedE2260PWDA

Germany

Monitors

4.1.4.1

O

Elimination of intentionally added leadin certain applications

No documentation provided

Manufacturer archived theproduct

Hyundai IT
America Corp.

P247DL

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.1.4.1

O

Elimination of intentionally added leadin certain applications

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer undeclared theNon-Conformant criterion

Corporativo
Lanix, S.A. deC.V

TITAN HX 4260E

MexicoDesktops

4.1.6.1

RElimination of intentionally added SCCP
flame retardants and plasticizers incertain applications

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer archived theproduct

ViewSonicCorporation

VP2770LED/VS14703

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.1.6.2

O

Large plastic parts free of certain flame
retardants classified under European
Council Directive 67/548/EEC

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

GEC archived the productIiyamacorporation

ProLite E2773HS

Germany

Monitors

4.1.6.2

O

Large plastic parts free of certain flame
retardants classified under European
Council Directive 67/548/EEC

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer archived theproductGammatechComputerCorporation

S15C

UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.1.7.1

O

Batteries free of lead, cadmium, andmercury

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer archived theproduct

TPV Technology
Limited

E2350SDA

Germany

Monitors

4.3.1.8

R

Minimum 65% reusable/recyclable

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

MMD-Monitors &Displays Taiwan
Ltd.

220B4LNew
Zealand

Monitors

4.3.2.2

O

Marking of plastics

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer undeclared theNon-Conformant criterion

Acer Inc.

Veriton X2631G

PortugalDesktops

4.3.2.2

O

Marking of plastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Page 6
August 2016

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

ProductCountry

Product
Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

GammatechComputerCorporation

SA14UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.6.2.1

ViewSonicCorporation

VG2228wmLED/14298

UnitedStates

Monitors

Hyundai IT
America Corp.

P247DPU

UnitedStates

EIZO Corporation

FlexScanEV2316W

EIZO Corporation

FlexScan S1933

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-01

Criterion Description

NC Finding Description

Corrective Action Taken

R

Provision of a rechargeable battery
take-back service

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

4.7.3.2

O

Corporate report based on GRI

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

Monitors

4.8.3.1

RDeclaration of recycled content

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer corrected thedeclaration on the EPEAT
Registry

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.8.3.1

R

Declaration of recycled content

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.8.4.1

O

Provision of take-back program forpackaging

Insufficient evidence toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Manufacturer provided
evidence demonstrating
Conformance

Page 7
August 2016

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 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 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 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-2016-01

Page 8August 2016