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-2016-03
1. Overview of Verification Round
Verification Round PC-2016-03 investigated tablets / slates claiming criterion 4.4.2.2. Nine
(9) Level 1 investigations were completed on this criterion. In addition, this roundcontained thirteen (13) Level 2 / 3 investigations for PC and Display products where themanufacturer had never undergone Level 2 / 3 lab testing.
Table 1: Summary of Criteria InvestigatedCriterion
4.1.8.1

Investigation
Level
Level 2/3

4.3.1.3

Criterion Title
Large parts free of PVC
Easy disassembly of external
enclosures

4.3.1.5

Identification and removal ofcomponents containing hazardous
materials

Level 24.3.1.7
4.3.2.2
4.4.2.2
4.8.2.1

Molded/glued in metal eliminated or
removable
Optional – Marking of plastics
Modular design
Separable packing materials

Level 2
Level 2/3
Level 1
Level 24.8.2.2

Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics
labeledLevel 2

Level 2

In total, 22 investigations were performed on eight (8) criteria where three (3) of the criteria
were Required and five (5) criteria were Optional. Eleven (11) manufacturers wereinvestigated in 4 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, and United States) in the Round.
2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:22 investigations completed

14 decisions of Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-03

Page 1April 14, 2017

7 decisions of Non-Conformance

1 decision of Inconclusive1 investigation was not completed since criterion was not claimed for chosen productFigure 1: Overall Conformance Status for PC2016-03 (by number of investigations)
1714

Conformance

Non-Conformance

Inconclusive

Figure 2: Reasons for Non-Conformance
87

1654
362
10
Demonstrated non-conformance
No documentation provided (product was not able to be obtained)

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations that were completed, inconclusive and whichinvestigations resulted in a decision of Non-Conformance.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-03

Page 2
April 14, 2017

TABLE 2: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

Description

Completed

NonConformances

Inconclusive

4.1.8.1

Optional

Large plastic parts free of PVC

2104.3.1.3

RequiredEasy disassembly of external enclosure

210

4.3.1.5

Required

Identification and removal of components
containing hazardous materials

2

10

4.3.1.7

Optional

Molded/glued in metal eliminated or
removable

2

10

4.3.2.2

Optional

Marking of plastics

220

4.4.2.2

Optional

Modular design

900

4.8.2.1

Required

Separable packing materials

2104.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics
labeled101

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.3.2.2: Marking of plastics
Criterion 4.3.2.2 references ISO 11469 standard. However, in order to be in accordance with ISO
11469, Manufacturers must use the symbols and terms given in ISO 1043. There are four parts toISO 1043:
1. Basic polymers and their special characteristics
2. Fillers and reinforcing materials
3. Plasticizers
4. Flame retardants
During this verification round, GEC discovered that Part 4 (flame retardants) of the ISO 1043:1996
standard was amended in 2016. Although the changes to ISO 1043 had already been implemented,
GEC did not issue any Non-Conformances for being out of compliance with the amended version ofISO 1043. Recognizing that making changes in the supply chain takes time, EPEAT Participating
Manufacturers therefore have until November 14, 2017 to put these changes into effect. AfterNovember 14, 2017, any plastic markings that are not in accordance with the updated ISO
1043:2016 standard may result in a nonconformance for these criteria.
See the EPEAT Conformity Guidance Packets for up-to-date information on other conformity issuesassociated with 4.3.2.2.
Level 2 / 3 Lab Testing
GEC is committed to having the Conformity Assurance Bodies perform Level 2 / 3 lab tests. Per
section 7 below, Both in Level 2 investigations and in Level 3 investigations, the Conformity
Assurance Body attempts to obtain a product without the Manufacturer’s knowledge orinvolvement. In some cases, the Conformity Assurance Body is unable to obtain a product and must
contact the Manufacturer directly to purchase a product. In these cases, it is the responsibility ofOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-03

Page 3April 14, 2017

the Manufacturer to provide their Conformity Assurance Body with a way to obtain a product in atimely fashion. Failure of the Conformity Assurance Body to obtain a product may result in NonConformance(s) for the Manufacturer and further investigation.

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 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:
Four Verification Rounds are planned for PCs and Displays in 2017.
Conformity Guidance Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance
provided in the Conformity Guidance Packets. Manufacturers can find these packets in the KeyDocuments section by logging into EPEAT.net.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-03

Page 4
April 14, 2017

6. Investigations Table

TABLE 2: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Requiredor Optional

Criterion

Criterion Description

Country

Product
Type

Required

4.8.2.1

Separable packing materials

UnitedStates

Desktop

Participating
Manufacturer

IDEdgeRequired

Required

Optional

Optional

ProductNC Finding Description

Corrective Action Taken

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.

Ultra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.

Ultra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.

Ultra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.

Ultra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.

Ultra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Conformity Assessment
Body Archived product.
Manufacturer correctedmarking issue.

4.3.1.3
Easy disassembly of externalenclosures

UnitedStates

4.3.1.5

Identification and removal ofcomponents containing
hazardous materials

UnitedStates

4.3.1.7

Molded/glued in metaleliminated or removable

UnitedStates

Large parts free of PVC

UnitedStates

Desktops

IDEdgeUltra-Small Desktop

No documentation
provided (product was notable to be obtained)

Desktops

Daten

DT02-Bv2

Demonstrated nonconformance

4.1.8.1

Optional

4.3.2.2

Optional – Marking of plastics

UnitedStates

Optional

4.3.2.2

Optional – Marking of plastics

BrazilOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-03

Desktops

Desktops

DesktopsDesktops

IDEdgeIDEdgeIDEdgeIDEdgePage 5
April 14, 2017

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 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 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 PC-2016-03

Page 6
April 14, 2017