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 PC-2016-02
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides the detailed results of EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02. This roundfocused on two types of investigation:
1) Level 1 investigations: targeted criteria from IEEE 1680.1. These targeted investigations include
criteria and manufacturers where, in previous investigations, corrective actions did not fully
address other products potentially impacted by the issue causing a non-conformance. They also
included criteria which have not been targeted in the last 12 months and criteria for which NonConformances are more likely. Products were chosen as follows:i. All Active products were included.
ii. All manufacturers claiming 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.3.1.9, 4.8.2.2 were investigated.
iii. For one manufacturer, a product was randomly chosen from a list of all their products
due to a suspicion of Non-Conformance.
iv. All geographies and all Manufacturers were included.
v. Manufacturers participated in no more than five investigations in this round.
2) Level 2/3 investigations: targeting two products which the GEC CAB was unable to purchase in
the marketplace in 2015. These products were investigated for all criteria listed in the tablebelow which were currently being claimed.
Criterion

Description of Criterion

Level 2

Level 34.1.8.1

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
4.3.2.2
4.8.2.1
4.8.2.2

Optional – Molded/glued in metal eliminated or
removable
Optional – Marking of plastics
Required – Separable packing materials
Optional – Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics
labeledOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

X
X

X

X
X

Page 1
October 2016

In total, 103 investigations were performed on 11 criteria where 10 of the investigations were
Required criteria and 93 of the investigations were Optional criteria. Round PC-2016-02 touched thefollowing areas of the EPEAT Registry:Forty-four Manufacturers were investigated in 19 countries in the Round.
See Figure 1 for countries involved in the Round.

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

Figure 1:
Countries in
PC-2016-02
Australia
Austria

2. Summary of Outcomes

Belgium

Highlights from this Verification Round:

Brazil

103 investigations completed

68 decisions of Conformance

32 decisions of Non-Conformance

Germany

1 decision of Inconclusive

Hungary

2 investigations were cancelled

CanadaFranceItaly
LatviaFigure 2: Overall Conformance Status for PC-201602(as percentages of total investigations)

MexicoNetherlands
Poland1%2%Lithuania

Spain
Sweden31%

Switzerland
United Kingdom

66%

United States

Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Non-Conformance

CancelInconclusive

Page 2October 2016

Figure 3: Reasons for Non-Conformance
1
12

19

Demonstrated non-conformance
No documentation provided
Insufficient documentation to prove conformance

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations that were planned, inconclusive and whichinvestigations resulted in a decision of Non-Conformance.
TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

Description

Planned

NonConformances

Inconclusive

4.1.8.1

Optional

Large plastic parts free of PVC

2

0

0

4.2.2.1

Required

Declaration of renewable / biobased
plastic materials content

4

4

0

4.2.2.2

Optional

Minimum content of renewable /biobased plastic material

1

1

0

4.3.1.3

RequiredEasy disassembly of external enclosure

2

0

0

4.3.1.5

Required

Identification and removal of components
containing hazardous materials

2

0

0

4.3.1.7

Optional

Molded/glued in metal eliminated or
removable

200

4.3.1.9

Optional

Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable

43

12

0

4.3.2.2

Optional

Marking of plastics

2

1

0

4.8.2.1

Required

Separable packing materials

2

0

1

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics
labeled42

14

04.8.5.1

Optional

Documentation of reusable packaging

1

0

0

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Page 3October 2016

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.2.2.1: Declaration of renewable / biobased plastic materials content:
Criterion 4.2.2.1 requires Manufacturers to declare the percentage of renewable/biobased plastic
materials. The declaration should be calculated as a percentage of total plastic by weigh for eachproduct. Declarations of zero are acceptable. However, if the declaration is for a value greater thanzero, supplier letter(s) must be provided as evidence in order to prove conformance. In addition, adocumentation of the calculation must be provided. The calculated percentage should equal thedeclaration on the EPEAT Registry.
Criterion 4.3.1.9: Minimum 90% reusable / recyclable:
Criterion 4.3.1.9 requires manufacturers to provide information documenting and supporting thepercentage recyclable/reusable for the product. While this information does not necessarily have tobe the actual calculations used to determine the percentage, Manufacturers should ensure they areprepared to support: The inclusion of external power cords, external power adapters and input cables for displays; The percentage being based on the total product weight (including the items above); and The recycling technologies used for all components and materials, and how these are“demonstrated”.
Criterion 4.3.2.2: Material marking codes on plastic components greater than 25 grams:
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/or
plasticizers. Additionally, Subscribers are encouraged to revisit the Conformity Assurance Protocols
to identify the types of information sought by the Conformity Decision Panel to determine
conformance.
Criterion 4.8.2.2: Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeled:This criterion has two parts. The first is that 90% of the packaging materials by weight be either
readily recyclable or compostable/disposable in a municipal waste system. The term “recyclable” isdefined as per the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims, which states that recycling facilities must be available to a substantial majority (i.e., 60%) of
consumers or communities. The second part of the criterion is that all applicable plastic packaging
must be labeled. While the labeling of plastic packaging is often straightforward, proving that the
packaging is at least 90% recyclable remains challenging for Manufacturers.
In order to claim this criterion, the packaging materials must meet this requirement for all countries
in which the product is registered. During a Verification Round, Subscribers should be prepared toprovide country-specific evidence supporting either access to a substantial majority of consumers orexistence of a market/use. Additionally, Clarification 13 applies to this criterion and should be
reviewed. The CDP has not found acceptable evidence that EPS is recyclable in the United States. A
Clarification for “market/use” for this criterion is in the process of being developed and should be
published in the next two months.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Page 4
October 2016

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 PCs and Displays have been kicked off. Planning for 2017
Verification Rounds has not yet begun.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Page 5October 2016

6. Investigations Tabl
TABLE 2: 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 300G

PolandDesktops

4.2.2.1

R

Declaration of renewable /biobased plastic materials
content

No documentation
provided

Manufacturer corrected thedeclaration in the Registry
to 0%.

Transource

Roadrunner Tablet

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.3.2.2

O

Marking of plastics

Demonstrated nonconformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

Daten Tecnologia
Ltda

DC1D-S

BrazilDesktops

4.3.1.9O

Minimum 90% reusable/
recyclable

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

digital computer

Ascent Desktop D-XXXX

BrazilIntegrated
Desktop
Computers

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

GammatechComputer
Corporation

U12C

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.3.1.9O

Minimum 90% reusable/
recyclable

No documentation
provided

Product archived by
Manufacturer

GETAC

V100

UnitedStatesIntegrated
Desktop
Computers

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

No documentation
provided

Product archived by
Manufacturer

Howard Technology
Solutions, A
Division of Howard

IQ2X

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Manufacturer did not takecorrective action so CAB
archived the product.

Hyundai IT America
Corp.

P277DP

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

Inida

M500/2000
AN500.01

Lithuania

Desktops

4.3.1.9O

Minimum 90% reusable/
recyclable

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
ManufacturerIntelligent Decisions

Ultra-Small
Desktop

UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

No documentation
providedCriterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

MMD-Monitors &Displays Taiwan Ltd.

226V3L(226V3LSB)

Hungary

Desktops

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

No documentation
provided

Product archived by
Manufacturer

NTT System S.A.

NTT Business W
910M

PolandMonitors

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Page 6
October 2016

TABLE 2: 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

Panasonic

Toughpad R1

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.3.1.9O

Minimum 90% reusable/
recyclable

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Provided additional
information to prove
conformance.

Toshiba

Tecra Z40-C
PT461U, PT463U,
PT465U

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Manufacturer provided
additional information toprove conformance.

Transource

MIR-Q900M

UnitedStatesThin Clients

4.8.2.2

O

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

ViewSonic
Corporation

VS14886 /VX2770Smh-LED,
VX2770Sml-LED,
VX2770S-LED

UnitedStatesTablets/
Slates

4.3.1.9O

Minimum 90% reusable/
recyclable

Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Manufacturer did not takecorrective action so CAB
archived the product.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-02

Page 7
October 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 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 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 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-2016-02

Page 8October 2016