Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

Outcomes Report

P41Issue 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 PC-2017-02
1. Overview of Verification Round
Verification Round PC-2017-02 investigated criteria from IEEE 1680.1 which had high rates of NonConformance during the last four Verification Rounds or which had not been recently investigated. Six(6) targeted Level 0 investigations were planned for this round. At the conclusion of the Level 0 phase,fifty (50) Level 1 investigations were conducted.
The criteria for investigation included the following:

Criterion
4.1.5.1
4.2.1.3
4.5.2.1
4.5.2.2
4.6.1.2
4.7.1.1
4.8.2.2

Table 1: Summary of Criteria to be InvestigatedRequired orOptional
Criterion Description
Optional
Higher content of postconsumer recycled plastic
Optional
Higher content of postconsumer recycled plastic
Optional
Renewable energy accessory available
Optional
Renewable energy accessory standard
Optional
Auditing of recycling vendors
Demonstration of corporate environmental policy
Requiredconsistent with ISO 14001
Optional
Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeled

In total 55 investigations were planned, one was cancelled, and 54 investigations werecompleted. One (1) Required criterion and six (6) Optional criteria were investigated. Thirty-two(32) Manufacturers were investigated in fifteen (15) countries.
2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:

55 investigations planned

54 investigations completed

40 decisions of Conformance

14 decisions of Non-Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02

Page 1October 20171 investigation was cancelled because the Manufacturer left the EPEAT Registry during theVerification Round

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status for PC2017-02 (by number of investigations)25%
CCancelled2%

NC
73%

Figure 2:
Reasons for Non-Conformance
7%
36%

Demonstrated nonconformance
Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance57%

No documentation provided

Table 1 below summarizes the number of investigations that were Planned, Non-Conformant andCancelled.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02Page 2October 2017

TABLE 1: Summary of Non-Conformance Findings
Criterion

RequiredorOptional

Description

4.1.5.1

Optional

4.2.1.3

Total
Investigations

NonConformances

Cancelled

Elimination of intentionally added hexavalentchromium

1120

Optional

Higher content of postconsumer recycled plastic

1221

4.5.2.1

Optional

Renewable energy accessory available620

4.5.2.2

Optional

Renewable energy accessory standard

110

4.6.1.2

Optional

Auditing of recycling vendors

100

4.7.1.1

Required

Demonstration of corporate environmental policy
consistent with ISO 14001

11304.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable (only, not plastics labeled)1340

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.1.5.1: Elimination of intentionally added hexavalent chromium:
The verification requirements for criteria in Section 4.1 of IEEE 1680.1-2009 call for “Evidence ofcertification from component manufacturers that is based on either empirical data demonstratingcompliance or analytical test data demonstrating compliance.”
Interpretation 1-6 indicates: “Empirical data may include supplier assurance of conformance, andmust include component sampling or data collection that is evaluated within a quality control systemthat demonstrates conformance.” Therefore, whether empirical or analytical, results fromlaboratory testing are required for these criteria. Manufacturers are encouraged to be preparedwith this information for Verification Rounds.
Criterion 4.2.1.3: Higher content of postconsumer recycled plastic:
Criterion 4.2.1.3 is a declaration that a product contains a minimum average of 25% postconsumer
recycled plastic. This declaration must be supported with a calculation and evidence from suppliers
proving the minimum average is at least 25%. In a case where evidence is provided showing thatthe product contains on average a minimum of less than 25%, criterion 4.2.1.3 should not beclaimed.
Criteria 4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2: Renewable energy accessory available or standard:Criterion 4.5.2.1 is a declaration that a renewable energy accessory is available at the time ofpurchase. While the Manufacturer does not need to make the accessory, it must be available forpurchase on the Manufacturer’s website. The accessory must also be able to power the product foran entire duty cycle. Since this criterion is country specific, Manufacturers should ensure that therenewable energy accessory is available in each country where it is being claimed.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02

Page 3October 2017

Criterion 4.5.2.2 is a declaration that the renewable energy accessory comes standard with aproduct. This means that a bundle must be available on the Manufacturer’s website which has boththe product and the accessory as a standard offering and must be available in the country where it isbeing declared.
Criterion 4.7.1.1: Demonstration of corporate environmental policy consistent with ISO 14001:
Criterion 4.7.1.1 requires Manufacturers to have a written corporate environmental policy that isboth publicly available and is consistent with the requirements in the section regarding
environmental policy in ISO 14001. Therefore, the Manufacturer must not only have a publicly
available environmental policy but they must also provide an index of the policy to the requirements
in ISO 14001.
Criterion 4.8.2.2: Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeled:
In the case of this criterion, Manufacturers provided insufficient evidence to prove that 90% or moreof the packaging components were recyclable. In the references and details section of this criterion,
it shows that the definition for “recyclable” comes from FTC Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims. The guide spells out exactly what requirements must be met to be able to claimthat a material is recyclable. Manufacturers claiming 4.8.2.2 should review this guide to ensure they
can provide evidence to support this claim for all recycling components included in the 90%.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
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 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.
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:
Please refer to the Conformity Assessment Packets which can be found on the My Account page ofEPEAT.net for more information about what evidence is required to prove each criterion. From theMy Account page go to Key Documents for a list of the Conformity Assessment Packets.

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
There are no additional Verification Rounds for 1680.1 products planned for 2017.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02

Page 4
October 2017

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

ProductHP Inc.

Stream 11 Pro
G3 Notebook PC

LenovoRequired

ProductTypeCriterion

Criterion Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action Taken

FranceNotebooks

4.5.2.1

Optional

Renewable energy accessory
available

Demonstrated nonconformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

ThinkPad E560

United States

Notebooks

4.5.2.1

Optional

Renewable energy accessory
available

No documentation
provided

Product archived by Manufacturer.

GETAC

S400

United States

Notebooks

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer.

Inida

M500 2000
AN500.01

Lithuania

Desktops

4.5.2.2

Optional

Renewable energy accessory
standard

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer.

Komparsa UAB

T8700

LatviaDesktops

4.1.5.1

Optional

Elimination of intentionallyadded hexavalent chromium

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Komparsa UAB

IS11F

Lithuania

Desktops

4.7.1.1

Required

Demonstration of corporate
environmental policy
consistent with ISO 14001Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Manufacturer provided additional
evidence to demonstrate
conformance.

MMD-Monitors& Displays
Taiwan Ltd.

242B7Q

GermanyMonitors

4.2.1.3

Optional

Higher content of
postconsumer recycledplastic

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer provided evidence ofchanges made resulting inconformance.

Demonstrated nonconformance

The investigated Manufacturer is amarketing and distribution division ofa larger company, which is also an
EPEAT participating manufacturer.
EPEAT and GEC CAB are in the processof transferring all of the investigated
Manufacturer’s products to the larger
EPEAT participating manufacturer’s
product listing.

MMD-Monitors& Displays
Taiwan Ltd.

243V5L

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02

CountryNetherlands

Monitors

or Optional

4.7.1.1

Required

Demonstration of corporate
environmental policy
consistent with ISO 14001

Page 5October 2017

Onyx
Healthcare Inc.

ONYX-BE182DTF1-1010

United States

Integrated
Desktop
Computers

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Demonstrated nonconformance

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

Samsung
Electronics

S22E200N

SwedenMonitors

4.1.5.1

Optional

Elimination of intentionallyadded hexavalent chromium

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer.

Samsung
Electronics

S22E200BW

Netherlands

Monitors

4.2.1.3

Optional

Higher content ofpostconsumer recycledplastic

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer.

Demonstrated nonconformance

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

Samsung
Electronics

S27E650D

FranceMonitors

4.7.1.1

Required

Demonstration of corporate
environmental policy
consistent with ISO 14001

Transource

MIR-B900U

United States

Desktops

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Criterion undeclared byManufacturer.

ViewSonicCorporation

VS15835 SC-T47

United StatesThin Clients

4.8.2.2

Optional

Packaging 90% recyclable
and plastics labeled

Insufficient
documentation toprove conformance

Product archived by Manufacturer.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2017-02

Page 6
October 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 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 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 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 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 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-2017-02

Page 7
October 2017