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-2018-04
1. Overview of Verification Round
PC-2018-04 investigated randomly chosen criteria from IEEE 1680.1: 2009 and randomly chosen
products. Sixty-three Level 1 investigations were planned for this round. In Level 1 investigations, anAuditor assesses Conformance to a criterion by examining information submitted by a
Manufacturer. The Manufacturer is required to provide detailed and accurate information in a 60day period.
The products and criteria were selected as follows:•All products that active on the Registry at the time of product selection were eligible forinclusion and were chosen through a random selection process.

•Criteria were chosen randomly for each selected product.

•The following criteria were removed from the pool of eligible criteria for this round due tothe fact that they will no longer be relevant for EPEAT registration for companies intending
to register products under IEEE 1680.1 2018: 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.6.2,
4.2.1.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.1.8, 4.3.1.9, 4.4.1.1, 4.4.2.1, 4.4.2.2, 4.5.1.2, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2, 4.6.1.2,
4.7.3.1, 4.7.3.2, 4.8.3.1, 4.8.4.1, 4.8.5.1.

•All geographies and Manufacturers were eligible for inclusion.

•Exception was as follows: If a criterion was randomly selected for a product and that
product had been investigated against that criterion in the last six months, a new criterion
was randomly selected for the product.

2. • No Manufacturer was subject to more than 7 investigations during this Round.
Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:•

63 total investigations assigned•

52 decisions of Conformance•

10 decisions of Non-Conformance•

1 investigation Cancelled

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-04

Page 1January 2019

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status (as % oftotal investigations)
2%
16%

83%

Conformance

Non-Conformance

Cancelled

Figure 2: Reason for Non-Conformance
554332210
No documentation provided Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

Demonstrated nonconformance

3. Key Lessons
Manufacturers should be sure that their products meet all the Verification Requirements of eachcriterion prior to making a declaration on the EPEAT Registry.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:
You can find more guidance and examples of conformance documents in the Conformity Sample
Packets located in “Key Documents” under My Account. Go to epeat.net to log in.
Initial response to Auditors:
Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-04

Page 2January 2019

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

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 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:
Information about 2019 Verification Activities can be found here.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-04

Page 3January 2019

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

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

Ace Computers

Mustang W670SR

United States

Notebooks

4.1.1.1

RequiredCompliance with provisions ofEuropean Union RoHS Directive

Insufficient documentation toprove conformance

Product archived byManufacturer.

CIARA-TECH

CIARA-VIBE-CTUTAB11

United States

Tablets/Slates

4.1.2.1

OptionalElimination of intentionallyadded cadmium

No documentation provided

Other: The product has alreadybeen archived prior to thisfinding.

Corporativo Lanix, S.A.
de C.V

CORP 4250E

MexicoDesktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials withspecial handling needs

Demonstrated nonconformance

Other: The product has alreadybeen archived prior to thisfinding.

digital computer

All products

All countries

All producttypes

4.6.2.1

Required

Provision of a rechargeable
battery take-back service

No documentation provided

Other: The Manufacturer isinactive in the EPEAT Registry.

digital computer

Ascent Desktop - DXXXXBrazilDesktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials withspecial handling needs

No documentation provided

Other: The Manufacturer isinactive in the EPEAT Registry.

Durabook Americas
Inc.

SA14

United States

Notebooks

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification of materials withspecial handling needs

Demonstrated nonconformance

If NC due to demonstrated nonconformance, Manufacturer
provided evidence of changes
made resulting in conformance.

TH ALPLAST

All products

All countries

All producttypes

4.6.1.1

Required

Provision of product take-backservice

No documentation provided

Other: All the Manufacturer’s
products were archived alreadydue to a non-conformance inthe previous round PC-2018-03

TH ALPLAST

G29

PolandWorkstations

4.8.3.2

Optional

Minimum postconsumer
content guidelines

No documentation provided

Other: All the Manufacturer’s
products were archived alreadydue to a non-conformance inthe previous round PC-2018-03

TECRA A50-E PT593A

Australia

Notebooks

4.8.1.1

Required

Reduction/elimination of
intentionally added toxics inpackaging

Insufficient documentation toprove conformance

Product archived byManufacturer.

Toshiba

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-04

Page 4January 2019

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

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

Toshiba

Tecra Z50-C PS57HANew Zealand

Notebooks

4.3.1.2

Required

Elimination of paints or coatings
that are not compatible withrecycling or reuse

Insufficient documentation toprove conformance

If NC due to insufficientevidence, Manufacturer
provided additional evidence todemonstrate conformance.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2018-04

Page 5January 2019

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

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 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 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 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-2018-04

Page 6
January 2019