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-2017-01
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides detailed results of Verification Round IE-2017-01. Sixty one (61) total investigations
were completed during this round. Verification Round IE-2017-01 investigated the following criteria
which had either been infrequently verified or had questionable declarations in previous VerificationRounds:
 4.1.6.2: Eliminating or reducing BFR/CFR content of printed circuit board laminates 4.1.8.1: Inventory of intentionally added chemicals residing in the product 4.2.1.1: Declaration of postconsumer recycled plastic content
 4.2.1.2: Minimum content of postconsumer recycled plastic
 4.2.1.3: Minimum 5% to 10% content of postconsumer recycled plastic
 4.2.1.4: Minimum 25% content of postconsumer recycled plastic
 4.2.2.1: Declaration of biobased plastic materials content
 4.2.3.1 Declaration of product weight 4.3.3.1 Notification regarding the identification of both materials and components that havehazardous characteristics or special handling needs
 4.3.4.3: Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable
 4.8.3.1: Recovered content in select fiber-based packaging materials
 4.9.3.3: Manufacturer recycles or reuses plastics collected through its cartridge and container takeback program

Additionally, the following Criteria were investigated for specific manufacturers:
 4.9.2.1: Documentation that product does not prevent the use of non-manufacturer cartridges andnon-manufacturer containers
 4.9.3.1: Provision of take-back and end-of-life management for cartridges and containers

Products were selected from a list of all active products on the registry, and all manufacturers andgeographies were eligible for inclusion. Each criterion was investigated at Level 1.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 1
October 2017

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

61 total investigations completed
51 decisions of Conformance
10 decisions of Nonconformance

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Statusfor IE-2017-01 (as a percentage oftotal investigations)

10Conformance
Nonconformance
51Figure 2: Reasons for nonconformance
12100
No evidence provided

868

Demonstrated
nonconformance
Insufficient documentation
to prove conformance

4220

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 2October 2017

3. Key Lessons
4.2.1.1 Required: Declaration of postconsumer recycled plastic content
4.2.1.2 Required: Minimum content of postconsumer recycled plastic
4.2.2.1 Required: Declaration of biobased plastic content
4.2.3.1 Required: Declaration of product weight
Each of these criteria require manufacturers to make declarations of particular values in the EPEAT
registry. When declaring specific values, manufacturers should ensure:The declared value matches what is supportable by evidence
The declared value is accurate and not rounded
The declared value is kept up-to-date when changes are made to the manufacturing process

4.1.6.2 Optional: Eliminating or reducing BFR/VFR content of printed circuit board laminates
To demonstrate conformance to this criterion, manufactures must provide documentation of aconformance assurance system (CAS) which addresses the restricted substances. Manufacturers may
use brominated and chlorinated substances other than BFRs and VFRs in the product; however if theconcentrations exceed the criterion’s thresholds, evidence must be provided which demonstrates thebromine or chlorine present is not the result of the use of BFRs or VFRs.
4.3.4.3 Optional: Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable
Manufacturers claiming this criterion should be prepared to provide evidence for each material orcomponent in the product, demonstrating the recycling technology used or a reuse market. This
information should clearly specify all recycling technologies used.
4.9.3.1 Required: Provision of take back and end of life management for cartridges and containers
The criterion specifies six end-of-life processing methods which must be publicly reported on themanufacturer’s website. Each method must be reported, and no methods may be combined for thepurposes of reporting.
4.9.3.3 Optional: Manufacturer reuses or recycles plastics collected through its cartridge and container
take-back programThis criterion requires manufacturers to make publicly available on their website information related tothe processing of plastics collected through their cartridge and container take back programs. This
information should clearly indicate that these materials are reused or recycled and that none are sent tolandfill or incineration facilities. Note that this is a corporate criterion, and that this information should
be updated on an annual basis.
4. General Message to Manufacturers
Products “Active” on the EPEAT Registry: All Active products on the EPEAT Registry are subject toVerification. When products reach their end of life, Manufacturers should remove the products from theEPEAT Registry. If a product which is Active on the EPEAT Registry has reached end of life and aManufacturer cannot obtain required evidence for verification 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 1680.2 standard. To gain access tothese modules, log in to EPEAT.net and go to the “My Account” page. From here click on “KeyOutcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 3October 2017

Documents”. There you will find a link to “EPEAT Criteria Training Videos”. These modules are designed
to de-mystify the standard’s requirements, and to illustrate the types of information needed during a
Verification Round. Manufacturers are encouraged to access these modules.
Initial response to Auditors:
When contacted regarding participation in a Verification Round, Manufacturers should respond to theAuditor 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 is valid.
Conformance of products that may share similar traits and/or supply chains: If a Non-Conformance isfound for a particular criterion and product, Manufacturers should be prepared to determine if otherproducts on the EPEAT Registry are similarly impacted due to use of similar 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:
Three (four?) investigation rounds are planned for imaging equipment in 2018.
Conformity Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance provided in
the Conformity Packets posted on www.epeat.net.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 4
October 2017

1. 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

Lexmark
International, Inc.

MS810

UnitedStatesInstitutional

4.2.1.1

Required

Declaration of
postconsumer recycledplastic content

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer corrected thedeclaration on the EPEAT
Registry

Samsung
Electronics

MultiXpress
X7500GX

UnitedStates

Institutional

4.2.1.2

Required

Minimum content of
postconsumer recycledplastic

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer corrected thedeclaration on the EPEAT
Registry

Samsung
Electronics

MultiXpress
K7400GX

UnitedStatesInstitutional

4.3.4.3

Optional

Minimum 90%
reusable/recyclable

Insufficient
documentation to
prove
conformance

Criterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

Samsung
Electronics

Xpress C1860FW

UnitedStatesConsumer

4.9.3.3

Optional

Manufacturer recycles orreuses plastics collected
through its cartridge andcontainer take-backprogramInsufficient
documentation to
prove
conformance

Manufacturer provided
additional evidence todemonstrate conformance

HP Inc.

HP LaserJet
Enterprise
M506dn(F2A69A#AAZ)

UnitedStates

Institutional

4.1.6.2

Optional

Eliminating or reducing
BFR/VFR content ofprinted circuit board
laminates

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Product archived by
Manufacturer

HP Inc.

OfficejetEnterprise ColorSFP X555xh

CanadaInstitutional

4.2.3.1

Required

Declaration of productweightDemonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes maderesulting in conformance

Ricoh

MP CW2200SP

UnitedStates

Institutional

4.2.2.1

Required

Declaration of biobased
plastic materials content

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Product archived byManufacturer

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 5October 2017

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

Ricoh

MP 3054SP

India

Institutional

4.9.3.1

Required

Provision of take-backand end-of-life
management for
cartridges and containers

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes maderesulting in conformance

Ricoh

MP 5054

India

Institutional

4.9.3.1

Required

Provision of take-backand end-of-life
management for
cartridges and containers

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes maderesulting in conformance

RicohMP C8002SP

India

Institutional

4.9.3.1

Required

Provision of take-backand end-of-life
management for
cartridges and containers

Demonstrated
non-conformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes maderesulting in conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round IE-2017-01

Page 6October 2017

2. 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 five-personpanel 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 the
Manufacturer’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-2017-01

Page 7October 2017