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 IE-2019-02
1. Overview of Verification Round
Verification Round IE-2019-02 investigated the following nine (9) criteria which had been targeted
during EPEAT’s annual Verification Planning process or had not been recently investigated:•

4.1.6.1 Required- Reducing BFR/CFR/PVC content of external plastic casings•

4.1.7.1 Optional- Reduce fluorinated gas emissions resulting from flat panel display
manufacturing•

4.2.2.1 Required- Declaration of biobased plastic materials content•

4.3.2.2 Required- Restriction on materials not compatible with reuse and recycling•

4.4.2.1 Optional- Product upgradability•

4.6.2.1 Required- End of life processing requirements•

4.8.1.2 Required- Elimination of elemental chlorine as a bleaching agent in packing material•

4.9.4.1 Required- Documentation that the cartridge or container is not designed to prevent its
reuse and recycling•

4.10.1.1 Required- Indoor air quality emission requirements

All products active in the Registry, all geographies and all manufacturers were eligible for inclusion.
Forty-Seven (47) Level 1 investigations were completed for this Verification round. A Level 1
investigation involves an Auditor review of Manufacturer submissions of evidence.

2. Summary of Outcomes
47 investigations were completed during this verification round.
45 findings of Conformance
2 findings of Nonconformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2019-02

Page 1
August 2019

Chart 1. Overall conformance rate for IE-201902 (as a percentage of overall investigations)4%96%

ConformantNonconformant

Chart 2. Reasons for Nonconformance
100%90%80%70%60%50%

2Insufficient evidence todemonstrate conformance40%
30%20%10%0%

3. Key Lessons
4.1.6.1 Reducing BFR/CFR/PVC content of external plastic casings
The manufacturer should be prepared to demonstrate active implementation of a conformanceassurance system (CAS) that assures substances are not present over the criterion thresholds. For
this criterion, analytical test data are required to demonstrate the Check element of the CAS.
4.6.2.1 End-of-life processing
This is a complex criterion with multiple paths to conformance. The manufacturer should provide alist of their initial service providers for end of life processing and pay careful attention to whichevidence to provide for different end of life processing situations.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2019-02

Page 2
August 2019

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:
You can find more guidance and examples of conformance documents in the Conformity Guidance
Packets located in “Help and FAQ”. 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.
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.

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
Two more verification rounds (IE-2019-03 and IE-2019-04) are planned for the remainder of 2019.
Conformity Guidance Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance
provided in the Conformity Guidance Packets posted on www.epeat.net under “Help and FAQ”.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2019-02

Page 3
August 2019

6. Investigations Table

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

ProductCountry

Product Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

NC Finding Description

Corrective Action Taken

Panasonic

N/A (CorporateCriterion)

UK

N/A

4.6.2.1

Required

End of life processing
requirements

Insufficient evidence todemonstrate conformance

If insufficient evidence todemonstrate conformance,
manufacturer provided
additional evidence
resulting in conformance

Visioneer

Visioneer Patriot
D40

UnitedStatesScanner

4.1.6.1

Required

Reducing BFR/CFR/PVC
content of external plasticcasings

Insufficient evidence todemonstrate conformance

If insufficient evidence todemonstrate conformance,manufacturer provided
additional evidence
resulting in conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2019-02

Page 4
August 2019

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 aConformity Assurance Body approved by the Green Electronics Council (GEC). Auditors are free ofconflicts of interest, and their recommended decisions are reviewed and finalized by the Conformity
Assurance staff of GEC. Decisions of conformity are made blind to the identity of the products andcompanies they are judging, based only on evidence collected and analyzed by Auditors. A serious
consequence of receiving a Major Non-Conformance is that it is published publicly in an Outcomes
Report, for purchasers, competitors, and others 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 aLevel 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 assessconformance 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 IE-2019-02

Page 5
August 2019