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-2017-04
1. Overview of Verification Round
Verification Round PC-2017-04 investigated randomly chosen IEEE 1680.1 criteria from for randomly
chosen products. Sixty-nine (69) Level 0 and Level 1 investigations were conducted in this Round. Twelve
Level 0 investigations were performed resulting in seven Conformances and five Inconclusive decisions.
The five Inconclusive investigations were then investigated at Level 1. Sixty-two (62) Level 1
investigations were launched and one of the investigations was cancelled.
The products and criteria were selected as follows:• All products that were currently active in the Registry were eligible for inclusion and chosen
through a random selection process.
• All criteria were eligible for inclusion and chosen randomly for each selected product.
• All geographies and Manufacturers were eligible for inclusion.
• Exception 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.
• No Manufacturer was subject to more than 5 investigations during this Round.
Exclusions: Criteria relating to plastics marking (4.3.1.4 and 4.3.2.2) were excluded due to last year’s
amendment to the 1043 marking standard.

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from the Verification Round:•69 investigations planned•

68 investigations completedo

54 decisions of Conformanceo

14 decisions of Non-Conformanceo

1 investigation Cancelled

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-04

Page 1May 2018

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status for
PC-2017-04
11454

Conformance

Non-Conformance

Cancelled

Figure 2: Reasons for Non-Conformance
239Insufficient documentation to prove conformance
No documentation provided
Demonstrated non-conformance

The following are a list of the seventeen (17) countries that were randomly chosen for thisVerification Round: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, India, Italy,
Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States.

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.1.6.1—Elimination of intentionally added SCCP flame retardants and plasticizers incertain applications
A common approach to investigating criterion 4.1.6.1 is for an Auditor to request a BOM thatincludes information on which parts contain flame retardants and plasticizers. From this list, anAuditor will choose high risk parts and request test data. Per Clarification 29 for IE 1680.1, lab tests
should be dated within the last two years or a reasonable explanation of why the data is still
relevant should accompany older test reports (e.g. evidence of a quality control program such as aOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-04

Page 2May 2018

CAS that assures ongoing conformance, product's initial registration date, likelihood for change inthe materials since the time of testing).

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 “Key Documents” under My Account. Go to epeat.net to log in.
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:
Four Verification Rounds are planned for PCs & Displays in 2018.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-04

Page 3May 2018

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

Daten
Tecnologia
Ltda

DC1D-T

BrazilDesktops

4.3.1.1

Required

Identification ofmaterials with special
handling needsInsufficient
documentation toprove conformance

CAB Archived product. The Manufacturer provided
an updated manual that met the criterion
requirements. The Manufacturer indicated byemail that the manual was updated on theManufacturer website, but it could not be located.

Login
Informatica

L4900

BrazilDesktops

4.5.1.1

Required

ENERGY STAR

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Manufacturer did not take corrective action and
CAB archived the product.

Ace
Computers

Vision UT66DL

UnitedStatesThin Clients

4.1.2.1

Optional

Elimination ofintentionally addedcadmium

No documentationprovided

Manufacturer did not take corrective action and
CAB archived the product.

Ace
Computers

FORCE 12UnitedStatesWorkstations

4.3.2.1

Optional

Manual separation ofplastics

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Manufacturer did not take corrective action and
CAB archived the product.

CIARA-TECHDISCOVERY
H110MAD-DA

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.1.7.1

Optional

Batteries free of lead,
cadmium, andmercury

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

The Manufacturer attempted to provide additional
test data to demonstrate conformance for thiscriterion, but the testing was not sufficient. CAB
archived the product.

CIARA-TECH

CIARA-VIBECTU-TAB11

UnitedStatesTablets/Slates

4.8.1.1

Required

Reduction/eliminationof intentionally added
toxics in packaging

No documentation
provided

Product archived by Manufacturer.

CIARA-TECH

CIARA-DEPARTC201PA-DS02

CanadaNotebooks

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90%
recyclable and plastics
labeledNo documentation
provided

Manufacturer did not take corrective action andCAB archived the product.

Corporativo
Lanix, S.A. deC.V

LX240

MexicoMonitors

4.1.1.1

RequiredCompliance withprovisions ofEuropean Union RoHSDirectiveInsufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Daten
Tecnologia
LtdaDT02-M4

BrazilNotebooks

4.8.1.1

Required

Reduction/eliminationof intentionally added
toxics in packaging

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

The product was already archived during thecorrective action phase for PC-2017-03.

GETAC

RX10UnitedStatesTablets/Slates

4.3.1.6

Optional

Reduced number ofplastic material types

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer did not take corrective action andCAB archived the product.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-04

Page 4May 2018

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

HowardTechnologySolutions, A
Division ofHoward

H11AKB

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.1.6.1

Required

Elimination of
intentionally added
SCCP flame retardants
and plasticizers incertain applications

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

The Manufacturer resubmitted documentation
provided during the investigation phase as well as a
new declaration in the corrective action phase, but
it was not sufficient to demonstrate conformance.
CAB archived the product.

Northern
Micro Inc.

Spirit P8Q87-AS(SFF)

CanadaDesktops

4.1.6.1

Required

Elimination of
intentionally added
SCCP flame retardants
and plasticizers incertain applications

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Toshiba

Portege Z30t-B
PT253E

UnitedKingdom

Notebooks

4.3.1.8

Required

Minimum 65%
reusable/recyclable

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Transource

Scorch SCO-750

UnitedStates

Desktops

4.8.3.1

Required

Declaration ofrecycled content

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer did not take corrective action andCAB archived the product.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-04

Page 5May 2018

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 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 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-2017-04

Page 6
May 2018