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 IE-2016-01
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides the detailed results of EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01. This roundfocused on criteria which had not been verified previously. The products were selected as follows:All products that were active in the Registry were eligible for inclusion.

Products were randomly selected from a list of products claiming the targeted criteria.

All geographies and Manufacturers were eligible for inclusion.

No Manufacturer was subject to more than six investigations during this Round.

Sixty investigations were conducted on ten criteria where 24 of the investigations were of required
criteria and 36 of the investigations were of optional criteria. Round IE-2016-01 touched thefollowing areas of the EPEAT Registry:

14 Manufacturers were investigated in the Round.

Products were chosen from two countries (US and Canada).

9 criteria which had never been verified before out of 58 criteria in IEEE 1680.2-2012 wereverified. Another criterion was planned to be investigated but no Manufacturers currently
claim this criterion (4.2.2.2).

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

60 investigations completed

55 decisions of Conformance

5 decisions of Non-Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01

Page 1
October 2016

Figure 1:
Overall Conformance Status for IE-2016-01(as percentages of total investigations)8%

92%

Conformance

Non-Conformance

Figure 2:
Non-Conformance Reasons(as a percentage of Non-Conformances)113

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

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01

Page 2October 2016

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations completed and which investigations were
Non-Conformances.
TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

Required or
Optional

4.1.6.2

Optional

4.1.8.1

Description

Investigations

NonConformances

Eliminating or reducing BFR/CFR content ofprinted circuit board laminates

10

Optional

Inventory of intentionally added chemicals
residing in the product1124.2.1.1

Required

Declaration of postconsumer recycled plastic
content

1114.2.1.2

Required

Minimum content of postconsumer recycledplastic

404.2.1.3

Optional

Minimum 5% to 10% content of postconsumer
recycled plastic

304.2.1.4

Optional

Minimum 25% content of postconsumer
recycled plastic

304.2.2.1

Required

Declaration of biobased plastic materials
content

31

4.2.2.2

Optional

Minimum content of biobased plastic material004.3.4.3

Optional

Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable

101

4.8.3.1

Required

Recovered content in select fiber-based
packaging materials

604.9.3.3

Optional

Manufacturer recycles or reuses plastics
collected through its cartridge and container
take-back program

8060

5Total

3. Key Lessons
4.1.8.1: Inventory of intentionally added chemicals:This criterion requires documentation of a Conformance Assurance System (CAS). A CAS is defined in
the Standard as “a process to ensure conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components, materials, packaging, and/or services…”Subscribers are required to demonstrate all 4 elements of a CAS:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Plan: Description of the requirement to the supplier.
Do: Collection of documents that show conformity.
Check: Demonstration of how conformance is assured.
Act: Corrective action.

4.2.2.1: Declaration of biobased plastic materials content:
Criterion 4.2.2.1 requires Manufacturers to declare the percentage of biobased plastic materials.
The declaration should be calculated as a percentage of total plastic by weigh for each product.
Declarations of zero are acceptable. However, if the declaration is for a value greater than zero,supplier letter(s) must be provided as evidence in order to prove conformance. In addition, aOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01

Page 3October 2016

documentation of the calculation must be provided. The calculated percentage should equal thedeclaration on the EPEAT Registry.

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.
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:
EPEAT has pre-recorded training modules for every criterion in the IEEE 1680.2-2012 standard.
These modules are designed to de-mystify the standard’s requirements, and to illustrate the typesof information needed during a Verification Round. Participating Manufacturers have access tothese modules under the “My Account” section of EPEAT.net. Go to “Key Documents” and searchfor EPEAT Criteria Training Videos for links to all available videos.
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 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.

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
All 2016 Verification Rounds for Imaging Equipment have been kicked off. The third and final
Verification Round for 2016 for Imaging Equipment involves Level 0 and Level 1 investigations. TheLevel 1 investigations are expected to start October 21, 2016. Planning for 2017 Verification Rounds
has not yet begun.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01

Page 4October 2016

6. Investigations Table
Table 2: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

Toshiba

Kodak

Toshiba

Sharp

Toshiba

Product

eStudio6540CGi2800

eStudio6540CGCountryUnitedStates

Product TypeMultifunction
Device (MFD)

Criterion

4.1.8.1

Requiredor Optional

Criterion Description

O

Inventory ofintentionally added
chemicals residing in
the productCorrective Action Taken

No documentation
provided

Product archived byManufacturer

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes
which restored
accuracy of EPEAT
Registry

No documentation
provided

Product archived by
Manufacturer

UnitedStates

Scanner

4.1.8.1

O

Inventory ofintentionally added
chemicals residing in
the product

UnitedStatesMultifunction
Device (MFD)

4.2.1.1

R

Declaration of
postconsumer recycledplastic content

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes
which restored
accuracy of EPEAT
Registry

No documentation
provided

Product archived by
Manufacturer

MX-5141N

UnitedStates

Multifunction
Device (MFD)

4.2.2.1

RDeclaration ofbiobased plastic
materials content

eStudio6540CG

UnitedStates

Multifunction
Device (MFD)

4.3.4.3

O

Minimum 90%
reusable/recyclable

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2016-01

NC Finding Description

Page 5October 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 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 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 onevidence 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 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 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 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 IE-2016-01

Page 6October 2016