Issued by the Product Verification Committee

Clarifications #1 – January 2007

Clarification 1-1. Regarding 4.1.4.1 – Optional criterion: Elimination of intentionally added lead

Question came from one subscriber:

1680 requires lead levels less than 50ppm. The verification requirements require either empirical data from supplier demonstrating compliance or analytical test data. The subscriber specifies that their suppliers not intentionally add lead. They also require their suppliers to provide test data at the level of 100ppm. The subscriber states that it is likely that other subscribers do not require test data at all, and that 50ppm is very low given testing capabilities. Is this sufficient?

Background Analysis: 1680 actually includes two different implicit standards for this criterion: 1) no intentionally added lead (in the criterion title and apparently the intent of the criterion) and 2) lead below 50ppm (the requirement in the criterion itself). This has implications for verification.

In addition the verification requirement in 1680 reads: “Evidence of certification from component manufacturers that is based on either empirical data demonstrating compliance or analytical test data demonstrating compliance.” Thus verification does not necessarily require testing to a specified level, but it does require either empirical or analytical data that demonstrates conformance to that level. The question is what “empirical data” is satisfactory. The “certification from component manufacturer” would seem to be an attestation by the component manufacturer that they have not added lead to the product and that none of their suppliers have added lead through any process. The certification can be backed up by empirical data that includes assurance of conformance through a quality control program.

This could be further supported, though not required, by evidence that the manufacturer has placed such requirement on their suppliers, that is, that they have specified no lead.

The specific subscriber that asked the question states that their documentation requires no added lead of suppliers. They would also need to provide evidence from the supplier that no lead was added, and then that would appear to meet the intent of the criterion for empirical data demonstrating conformance. However, in the requirements of their suppliers they specify testing at a less stringent level (100 ppm versus 50 ppm) than 1680 requires at 50ppm. Does the specification of a higher testing level imply that the product may not, in all cases, meet the criterion, even though “no added lead” is also specified? Since the standard wording cites specifically 50ppm, does this imply that there should be a test at that level?

The standard is not internally contradictory; it simply includes two different requirements for demonstration of conformance, separated by an “or”. Meeting either of those requirements would suffice for demonstration of conformance based on manufacturer-supplied verification data. Of course, nothing would prevent the PVC from having analytical tests performed to confirm the representation of the manufacturer.

PVC Determination: The wording of the criterion prevails over the title of the criterion wherever there is a conflict or inconsistency. In this case, the criterion defines the threshold to which the determination of no added lead must be measured – “50ppm by weight per listed part”.

• Certification by suppliers of no intentional added lead and manufacturer specifications are not sufficient to satisfy the Verification Requirements.

• The Verification Requirements are very clear that certifications are based on either empirical or analytic test data demonstrating compliance. See the Guidelines on Subscriber Verification Data for the submittal of quality control procedures to satisfy these data requirements.

• Demonstration that parts do not exceed the 50 ppm level is required according to the wording of the criterion.

• The term “listed part”, which differs from the RoHS test of homogeneous material, refers to the types of parts listed as example in the criterion, or the VDU as a whole.

Clarification 1-2. Regarding 4.3.1.1 – Required criterion: Identification of materials with special handling needs

The following question came from one subscriber:

Would it be acceptable to the Green Council if we identified such materials in the users manual? We have checked several EPEAT products and we did not note any makings on the computer, but were indicated in the manual. I am referring to mercury in the backlight tube, which is exempted in the RoHS Directive specifically. The state of Vermont will require that notebook computers be labeled to identify the presence of mercury, by July 1, 2007. But we, and apparently other manufacturers are not yet ready to apply such a label as yet until close to that date. This is a very important point that remains to be resolved and would greatly appreciate your response

Background Analysis: The intent of the standard is to “provide treatment information to reuse and recycling facilities”. It does not specify how to provide the information, and therefore any reasonable attempt that would make the information directly accessible to recyclers would be reasonable.

It has been documented that manuals are not generally provided along with electronic equipment for recycling. Moreover, a survey of recyclers indicates that not very many access information from manuals.

When this criterion was developed, the thought was that this type of information would be available on a web site of some sort – either the manufacturers or a common one. The Green Electronics Council has spoken with the National Center for Electronics Recycling and IAER about hosting such a site, and there is interest.

PVC Determination: Posting treatment information on the manufacturer’s web site, possibly in an on-line manual, is acceptable. Likewise, labeling on the product would also make it directly accessible to recyclers. However, simply publishing the information in a hard copy manual that does not typically accompany a device at end-of-life is not an adequate demonstration of providing treatment information to recyclers.

Clarification 1-3. Regarding 4.3.1.2 – Required criterion: Elimination of paints or coatings that are not compatible with recycling or reuse

The following question came from one subscriber:

1) ASTM D256 method does not specify the sampling preparation procedure. It is not clear whether we need to imitate the typical recycling process for the IZOD impact test including extrusion or whether we could run a test by making test samples by molding plastic pieces. 2) Recycled resin will have potentially impacted by 1) recycling process including heat exposure and 2) paint coating mixed into the resin. It is not clear whether we will need to run two series of test, one without paint (either obtaining the part without pain or scraping the paint) and one with paint and compare the IZOD impact results.

A second question about this criterion came from a potential future subscriber:

As IEEE 1680, 4.3.1.2, says: All covered products shall not contain paints and coatings on larger plastic parts that are not compatible with recycling and reuse.

However, we’ve got some lab 3R reports analyzing that EMI shielding film (composed of metal) on plastic parts is so small quantity that could be neglected when recycling. Therefore, could it be acceptable for EPEAT?

A third similar question came from a subscriber:

Is it accepted in case the front bezel of the monitor has painting on it (silver color)? I have checked it with TUV and TUV said even if it has painting on it, it is recyclable.

Background Analysis: The standard requires that “compatible with recycling” refers only to the resulting physical/mechanical properties of the recycled resin and is defined in 3.2.2 by a specified ASTM lab test that compares the properties of a sample of the plastic with the coating relative to a sample of the same plastic without the coating. Clearly the samples of each must be prepared in a process that involves grinding, melting and molding in some manner, because that is how a recycled plastic material is produced. If the precise manner of doing so is not specified in the ASTM procedure, then the subscriber would have flexibility in how they would simulate the recycling process.

The verification requirements specify that the subscriber will provide the results of such a test, or the supplier verification of such, if paints/coatings are used.

The intent of the criterion is that large plastic parts (>100g) can be separated from the product and processed into a recycled plastic that retains characteristics that do not compromise its functionality. It uses the definition of “compatible with recycling” which is defined in 3.2.2 by the IZOD impact test.

In conducting the impact test, the following options have been defined:

Option 1 (preferred): Compare IZOD impact of two parts, following a recycling process simulation (i.e., grinding, pelletizing): 1) painted plastic part; 2) same part, but unpainted.

Option 2: Compare the IZOD impact of a painted plastic part, following a recycling process simulation, to the IZOD specification for the resin. The IZOD specification could be the manufacturer specification or supplier-provided material properties data.

PVC Determination: The 3.2.2 definition is compatible with either option above. The measure is if there has been >25% reduction in the IZOD test results in comparison with un-painted plastic, but it does not specify how the test level for un-painted plastic be defined.

The criterion should be applied to whole parts >100g in size as molded and pre-assembly, i.e. plastic housings. In other words, the manufacturer is not required to speculate as to how a recycler might disassemble the product, but rather should test the parts in the form they occur prior to assembly.

Note that neither the lab 3R reports nor the TUV assertion cited above are either a “manufacturer test” (unless, of course, 3R or TUV supported their assertion by the applicable test) or a “supplier verification”, so they would not meet the verification requirements.

Clarification 1-4. Regarding 4.3.1.8 – Required criterion: Minimum 65% reusable/recyclable

Regarding 4.3.1.9 – Optional criterion: Minimum 90% reusable/recyclable

Several companies have asked for clarification.

• How will we confirm conformance?

• How many recycling tiers are considered? In other words, if a 3^rd tier recycler discards some material, should that not be counted as recycled?

Following is a quote from one subscriber:

Issue: Calculation method is not clearly defined. For example, if a component or part is sent for recycling by tier one vendor to tier two vendor, whether the entire component/part can be considered as recyclable, or whether we would need to exclude a part of component that will not be recycled by the tier two vendor is not clear.

Background Analysis: These are difficult criteria to be certain of conformance, since demonstrating the recyclability of an electronic product is new and uncertain ground. The standard states that the definition is “in accord with” the WEEE Directive. The WEEE Directive will therefore provide the context for the definition of “recyclability”. However, the WEEE was adopted by the EU, and the enforcement, as well as many of the enforcement standards, is left to the member countries of Europe. Thus the EU has provided some but not all the principles necessary for EPEAT purposes.

Another important difference is that the WEEE Directive measures the recycling targets according to a stream of products. However, EPEAT relates to individual products. This makes it difficult to translate the WEEE targets into individual product design criteria.

Note that all quoted text below is from the WEEE Directive unless otherwise cited.

Article 7 of the WEEE Directive sets targets “regarding WEEE sent for treatment” for IT equipment:

• “Component, material and substance reuse and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 65% by an average weight per appliance.”

• Note that a “recovery” rate of 75% is also set. It includes energy recovery, such as combustion in a waste-to-energy plant, and thus is not applicable in the EPEAT definition of recyclable. Therefore this target is not relevant.

The WEEE also provides certain other principles that must be considered in claiming product recyclability rates:

• Definition of “treatment” – “any activity after the WEEE has been handed over to a facility for depollution, disassembly, shredding, recovery or preparation for disposal and any other operation carried out for the recovery and/or the disposal of the WEEE”.

• WEEE treatment requires the removal of all fluids and selective treatment of Hg containing lamps, batteries, plastics with BFRs, CRTs, liquid crystal displays, and certain other components and materials. This does not imply that these materials cannot be counted toward recycling targets, if indeed they are recycled, but that they cannot be simply shredded with other components and materials.

• “Reuse of whole appliances…shall not be taken into account for the calculation of the targets.” However, the reuse of components is counted toward the recycling/reuse targets.

• The EU has recognized that it is allowable “to use an estimate as to the average percentage of reused, recycled and recovered materials.” [2005/369/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2005 laying down rules for monitoring compliance of Member States and establishing data formats for the purposes of the WEEE Directive.] This implies that the calculation of recyclability rates is not intended to be highly precise.

It is important to note that the required EPEAT criterion, based on the experience in Europe to date, is not difficult to achieve for the current stream of end-of-life electronics. “Existing systems show a recycling rate of about 80-90% (including energy recovery). It is still very difficult to make comparisons of recycling and treatment performance due to varying standards and definitions between countries.” [European Commission Technical Report Series, “Implementation of the WEEE Directive in the EU”, 2006.] Note that the 80 – 90% cited above compares to the WEEE target of 75%, not to the reuse/recycling rate of 65%. In any case, we expect that achieving the EPEAT required criterion of 65% would likely not be difficult, but achieving the optional criterion of 90% reusable/recyclable would likely require demonstration of higher recyclability than average existing products.

The key question is then how to determine what portion of a product is recyclable. At each tier in the chain of recycling facilities that handle the product, certain “non-recyclable” portions are disposed of, or used for some purpose other than recycling such as energy recovery. In other words, the key question for the subscriber is to know what portion of their product would end up as rejected material, and to deduct that from the total weight of the product.

PVC Determination: The following principles should be used by subscribers in determining the percentage reusable/recyclable for EPEAT conformance:

• Calculations for EPEAT will utilize the WEEE principles identified above, noting that energy recovery, such as combustion in a waste-to-energy plant, is specifically excluded from the EPEAT definition of recyclable.

• The reusable/recyclable percentage will be the weight of materials that is recyclable, divided by the total weight of the product, multiplied by 100.

• The manufacturer has no control over how a product is disassembled or shredded at end-of-life. Therefore the manufacturer should consider the reusability or recyclability of the materials and components as they are assembled or in the assembled product.

• Materials that would be separated out for disposal or energy recovery at the point of collection, by the sorter (triage), or by a disassembler or shredder, will not be counted as reusable/recyclable.

• The “demonstrated recycling technology” would be applied in assessing the reusability/recyclability of those materials and components as assembled. It is expected, though not specifically required, that a subscriber has investigated real world recycling processes relative to the specific characteristics of the materials and components of registered products to ascertain what portions would, through demonstrated technologies, in reality could be reused or recycled.

• The number of tiers in the recycling chain, or the location of those operations, is not strictly relevant to this calculation.

Clarification 1-5. Regarding 4.5.1.2 – Early adopter of a new ENERGY STAR standard:

This criterion has come into effect due to the recently adopted ES 4.0. Subscribers can claim it now, but no one has. The issue is that the Verification Requirements read “Demonstration of ENERGY STAR certification”. But the criterion is intended to be used before the new ES requirement does into effect. So there will not be any “certification” by the ES program.

Background Analysis: During the development of this criterion at the last minute, the discussion was along the lines that we would expect to be delivered to us for verification the same kind of test data that would be delivered to ES for the manufacturer to be certified to ES.

PVC Determination: The term “ES certification” was intended to mean the subscriber’s evidence (certification) that the product meets ES 4.0, and that evidence would be the applicable test data that would be required for ENERGY STAR compliance.

Clarification 1-6. Regarding 4.6.1.2 – Optional corporate annual report criterion: Auditing of recycling vendors.

Subscribers have asked: What is the geographic scope of this criterion? Are only the recycling vendors in North America (or the US) required to be audited annually to the 3rd tier, or does the criterion have worldwide application? If worldwide, does that mean all regions where first through third tier recyclers are located, or all regions where the product is sold? It has also been asked what type of auditing is required.

Background Analysis: This criterion was adopted late in the EPEAT development process and was discussed as being a partial “make-up” for not including restrictions on export of product to be recycled. Auditing of recycling vendors was discussed as partial protection against environmentally irresponsible recycling, including overseas where the major problems have been documented.

PVC Determination: The criterion is silent on specifying a regional restriction. It therefore applies worldwide, especially when considering the intent of the criterion to partially address environmentally unfriendly recycling resulting from export. Since the criterion applies to recycling vendors, rather than the product itself, it should apply wherever the recycling vendors (first through third tier) are located. Also, an EPEAT declaration applies to all units of the product sold anywhere, and the 4.6.1.1 criterion requires that a product take-back service be offered to institutional purchasers anywhere. It seems to follow that auditing should apply to recycling vendors anywhere who are downstream processors servicing product from the subscriber registered to this standard.

The subscriber should provide to the Qualified Verifier a map or guide to the first through third tier recyclers that participate in the subscriber’s “take-back and recycling service” to support the verification process.

Note that some components may be removed from products during recycling and sold for reuse. If sold as tested working products or components, they leave the recycling stream and therefore do not require further auditing. The auditing requirement applies only to the take-back and recycling service. However, if materials are separated and sold for recycling, the audit requirements apply.

The criterion does not exclude internal audits; however, in all cases an on-site visit must be conducted by the subscriber or a third party to ascertain the adequacy and relevance of the audit to the requirements of this criterion.

If this criterion is selected for verification, additional guidance may be forthcoming to assist the subscriber.

Clarification 1-7. Regarding 4.6.2.1 – Required corporate annual report criterion: Provision of rechargeable battery take-back service.

It has been asked whether a subscriber must be a licensee of RBRC to satisfy the participation in the RBRC program requirement in order to claim this criterion.

Background Analysis: The criterion does not require a subscriber to be a licensee of RBRC, but being a licensee would automatically meet the criterion. A couple of subscribers have claimed this criterion not as RBRC licensees. If not a licensee, conformance would be tested according to a yardstick of equivalence (“equivalent to or better than that provided by RBRC”).

One complication to consider is that the RBRC program is available for all rechargeable batteries and applies to all purchasers of products. So, in one possible interpretation, a subscriber may be able to meet the criterion by being a ‘free rider’ on the RBRC system. That is, they would simply direct their customers to use RBRC to recycle rechargeable batteries from their products.

PVC Determination: The Verification Requirement b) requires that the subscriber provide “Documentation of battery take-back service”. If the subscriber is a licensee of RBRC then demonstration of such is adequate to meet this verification requirement. Of course, they must also meet Verification Requirement c) to provide “Documentation of notification of user of battery take-back service”.

If the subscriber is not a licensee of RBRC, then they must provide documentation that demonstrates that the service is provided at a “competitive price” and that it is “equivalent to or better than that provided by the RBRC”. This guidance is intended to provide a yardstick by which it will measure “equivalence” based on wording in the 4.6.2.1 criterion.

As outlined in the Verification Requirements and References and Details, the following is required for “equivalent” programs:

• Demonstration that the take back service is equivalent in cost or less expensive for the user (i.e. purchasers of products) as RBRC and is equivalently convenient as RBRC for the user

• Documentation of notification of users of battery take-back service by making information available on the web site, in product literature, or other equivalent means

• Affixing of recycling system notification to rechargeable batteries used in the registered product

• Documentation of amounts returned.

Since the criterion is explicit about being an RBRC licensee, being a “free rider” does not demonstrate conformance with the criterion. If not an RBRC licensee, the subscriber must provide an equivalent service.

Clarification 1-8. Regarding 4.7.3.2 – Optional corporate annual report criterion: Corporate report based on GRI

A company asked if the required index to the corporate report can be provided on the web.

PVC Determination: The index should be provided to purchasers and other stakeholders in whatever form the full report is provided. The criterion does state that the report and the index shall be provided with the verification data.

Clarification 1-9. Regarding 4.8.2.1 – Required criterion: Separable packing materials.

A subscriber noted that the criterion specifies only that materials be “separable”, and that they “shall be able to be segregated into like materials without the use of tools”. However, the verification requirements specify that “dissimilar materials are not glued together”. Some packaging practices use a “post it” type glue to keep items in place during packing but are easily separable.

PVC Determination: The wording of the criterion should take precedence over the more restrictive wording of the verification requirement. Even if “glue” is used, but the materials can “be segregated into like materials without the use of tools”, then the product (packaging) is in conformance with the criterion.

Clarification 1-10. Regarding 4.8.2.2 – Optional criterion: Packaging 90% recyclable and plastics labeled.

The following question came from one subscriber:

Is there an exemption for marking very small plastic packaging parts (e.g. approximately the size of a quarter)? Currently many of our products have all the plastic packaging marked with the exception of some small parts like cable retainer clips and handle anchors (see attached photos). We would like to claim the optional point for the packaging recyclability and marking, but these small, difficult to mark parts are blocking us.

Background Analysis: The standard is clear. "All" means all. But marking systems generally (e.g. 1680 for product components and even laws relative to plastic bottles) have a lower limit. This is an instance where the wording in the standard is clearly unreasonable by not providing an exemption for small parts. In addition, the standard addresses two issues: 1) packaging is 90% recyclable and 2) plastics labeled.

PVC Determination: Per the advice given by the EPEAT Board of Advisors, the PVC shall, if this criterion is selected for verification, verify only the 90% recyclable portion of the criterion.

The PVC further recommends that this criterion be amended to establish a lower mass threshold for labeling and packaging in future revisions of the standard.

Clarifications #2 – July 2007

Clarification 2-1. Regarding use of the exceptions field.

Background Analysis: The exceptions field is intended to implement the provisions of 1680 regarding reporting to EPEAT Inc. on “configurations” that do not meet the Standard. The Standard reads:

“Different configurations of a product, as defined in 3.1, may include options for processors, memory, hard disks, etc. A product, for the purpose of this Standard, is every configuration that could be offered in a specific marketing model and chassis type. If there is a specific configuration within a marketing model and chassis type that would change the environmental performance substantially, especially if that configuration would no longer meet a criterion, then the manufacturer could not claim conformance to this Standard for that configuration, even if the same model in other configurations did conform to this Standard. The manufacturer shall report such special configurations that do not conform to the Standard to the Product Registration Entity.”

In section 3.1 “product” is defined as: “A marketing model and chassis type (and all its peripherals) versus a singular configuration of the product.” “Configuration” is not defined.

The exceptions field is now being used in ways that seem to diverge substantially from the wording of the Standard. Following are examples of how the exceptions field is being used by some subscribers:

• To identify geographic limitations of an offering of certain services that are required by a criterion. For example, product or packaging take-back, or the availability of components such as a renewable energy source.

• To identify conditions of a sale for which certain services are offered. For example, the availability of reusable packaging based on the number of units purchased.

• To state that certain un-specified product configurations would not conform. These are defined merely by the fact that they do (or do not) conform. For example, “pre-configured models meeting ENERGY STAR® 4.0 requirements” or “Certain exceptional configurations may fall outside E-star 4.0 requirements. Please specify E-star 4.0 compliance when ordering”.

Purchasers and other subscribers have expressed concern about this use of the exceptions field. Several subscribers are working hard to gain every optional point they can to achieve higher tier levels. They have examined the use of the exceptions field and state that either they must use similar exceptions to those now being used or face a competitive disadvantage.

Clear policy direction has been provided to interpret the Standard strictly. EPEAT staff and the PVC are deeply concerned that this apparently non-conformant use of the exceptions field is a very slippery slope. It could evolve into a very confusing set of qualifications about registered products that do not conform with the Standard. This could seriously undermine the utility and credibility of the Registry.

The following Clarification is intended to limit the use of the exceptions field to a strict reading of the Standard. All subscribers are asked to check their use of the exceptions field to bring it into conformance with this Clarification. Staff will review the Registry in two weeks following the issuance of this Clarification. If at that time there are exceptions that don’t appear to conform with this guidance then EPEAT staff and the PVC will consider the option of initiating a single-issue Verification.

Staff and the PVC are aware that the exceptions field is not explicitly included in the verification scope of the standard. However, because it is not explicitly included the PVC apparently has the option of ignoring information in the exceptions field during verification. While this is not intended, it should defuse the potential argument that the exceptions field is not subject to verification. It is either to be considered during verification or it is not.

PVC Determination: The exceptions field on www.epeat.net implements the IEEE 1680 provision for subscribers to report to EPEAT “special configurations that do not conform to the Standard”. Though the term “configurations” is not defined in the Standard, the examples of “configuration”, and the obvious intent of the Standard, are that “special configurations” are specific hardware or software variations of the product that can be specified by a customer at time of order. The use of the exceptions field for other than customer specifiable hardware or software configurations of the product is not in conformance with the Standard. Such non-conformant uses include conditions on the sale of the product such as geographic limitations on the availability of certain required services or features, conditions on the quantity of products included in a sale in order to receive services required by a criterion, or conditions on the type of customer.

Moreover, it is expected that the exceptions field will “report such special configurations that do not conform to the standard”. In other words, it will not be considered conformant for the exceptions field to simply state that un-specified configurations may, or may not, conform to the standard, nor that purchasers must specify that they wish to purchase EPEAT-conformant configurations. It is the intention that all units of the product defined by the product name meet the criteria as declared with few and narrowly and clearly defined exceptions, if any. The intention is that if a customer orders the product name listed in the registry, they will receive a product that meets the criteria as declared unless they have specified some special hardware or software configuration that is clearly described as an exception. That is, conformance with the declared criteria is the default – it need not be specified.

The PVC issues this Verification Clarification because the EPEAT Registry’s exceptions field has apparently been used by some subscribers in ways not intended in the 1680 Standard.

Clarification 2-2. Regarding use of the exceptions field – Modification of Clarification 2-1. Issued in August 2007.

Background Analysis: PVC Clarification #2 was issued in July regarding use of the exceptions field (the field which subscribers can fill in on the Registry to identify configurations of a product that are not conformant with a criterion). Since then, the complexities of ES 4.0 compliance, and their impact on designating specific configurations that are, or are not, EPEAT conformant, has been brought to our attention. We will be forming a Task Force to address this and the many issues raised for EPEAT by ES 4.0, and to develop a comprehensive solution. That solution may be implemented via Interpretations or Amendments to IEEE 1680 – a process that we are initiating anyway – or in new features on the Registry.

PVC Determination: In the meantime, we wish to provide limited temporary flexibility in use of the exceptions field. Unless and until the 1680 Standard is amended, the exceptions field must be used to identify specific configurations, per PVC Clarification #2. However, until the ES 4.0 solution is implemented, we will allow a note in the Exceptions field that states that certain configurations of the product may not be ENERGY STAR 4.0 compliant, and that specific compliant, or non-compliant, configurations can be identified through contact with your company.

This non-specific use of the exceptions field is not in strict conformance with 1680 and will only be permitted until a full ES 4.0 solution is implemented.

Clarifications #3 – March 2008

Clarification 3-1. Regarding 4.5.2.1 – Optional criterion: Renewable energy accessory available.

Background: The following issue arose in Verification Round Two:

In meeting this criterion, different subscribers have made renewable energy (RE) accessories available in very different ways. For the purpose of verifying conformance for this criterion it is necessary for subscribers to understand how the PVC will interpret the terms “commercially available for purchase with the product”.

What does “available for purchase” mean? Does the RE accessory need to be provided by the subscriber? Can it be provided by a third-party? Is it necessary that it be purchased from the subscriber “with the product”, or can a purchase request be referred to a third-party? Does it need to be advertised and promoted by the subscriber?

The IEEE Interpretations group decided on the following interpretation of this criterion:

Furthermore, the terms “available for purchase with the product” means that the purchaser must be able to buy the accessory from the subscriber along with the product, though the product may be provided by a third-party.

PVC Clarification: For conformance with criterion 4.5.2.1 the renewable energy accessory must be available for purchase with the purchase of the product. When the customer orders the product from the subscriber, they may also order the accessory from the subscriber. However, the supplier of the accessory need not be the subscriber. The availability of the accessory must be made evident to all potential institutional purchasers through the subscriber’s commercial documentation, such as identification on the subscriber’s web site or inclusion in product literature provided at the time of consideration of purchase. Declaration on the EPEAT Registry is not of itself adequate commercial documentation.

Clarification 3-2. Regarding temporal conditions for conformance

This Clarification relates to the conditions of conformance of all criteria. The relevant language is from section 1.4 of the 1680 standard, and reads as follows:

Conformance with this Standard shall be demonstrated by the following process:

1. Before declaring the conformance of products to this Standard, the manufacturer will sign a legally binding Agreement with a Product Registration Entity. This Agreement shall commit the manufacturer to providing accurate product and company information and shall provide for remedies should inaccuracies be discovered.

The Agreement shall provide that all units sold of a product that is declared to this Standard shall conform to the product declaration submitted by the manufacturer….

Background: The following issue arose in Verification Round Two:

Some investigations revealed, through evidence of dated documents, that the conditions of a criterion were met well after the criterion was declared to by the subscriber, and in some cases after the Verification Round began and the subscriber was notified that the criterion in question would be investigated.

In some of those cases the declared product, and its attributes relevant to conformance with 1680, was designed especially for an institutional procurement that had not yet been completed. The declaration to criteria and the status of the product on the Registry were relevant to product selection in the procurement. However, subscribers claimed that since none of the products being verified had yet been sold, they did not need to be in conformance.

PVC Clarification: The effective language from the 1680 standard is “This Agreement shall commit the manufacturer to providing accurate product and company information….” This can only mean that when a subscriber declares that a product meets the terms of a criterion, it does in fact meet those terms. Therefore, the product must meet all the requirements of a criterion when the subscriber declares to that criterion, and it would be a non-conformance to declare to a criterion, and then later to bring the product into conformance. The reference in the standard to “all units sold…shall conform” does not provide a condition for when the declaration must be accurate.

Special Circumstance: One criterion that is being verified in Round Two will be given special treatment due to the unique language in the criterion.

Criterion 4.7.3.2 Optional – Corporate report based on GRI

Annual Report Criterion: Manufacturer shall produce an annual public report that is based on, but not limited to, certain elements of the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. An index shall be provided to indicate which portions of the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines are covered and not covered in the report.

Applies to: All manufacturers with products that are declared to conform to this Standard.

Verification Requirements:

1. Declaration from manufacturer

2. Copy of annual report

3. Index to report showing how report is based on GRI

The special treatment results from the unique phrase in this criterion: “shall produce”. The tense of this phrase has created confusion as to whether the annual report must have been produced prior to declaration to the criterion.

1. In the future, before the subscriber declares to this criterion a corporate report that meets this criterion shall have been produced. That is, such report shall exist so that a “copy of annual report” can be provided to the verifier. It shall also be demonstrated that the subscriber intends to produce the report annually.

2. For Round Two only, however, due to the ambiguity of the phrase “shall produce”, the pre-existence of the annual report shall not be required for conformance. However, the subscriber must be able to provide evidence that an annual report that meets the criterion is explicitly planned for production, or is currently in production.

Clarification 4-1.Regarding 4.1.4.1 Optional – Elimination of intentionally added lead in certain applications

Some manufacturers have asked what the limits are of components “that are directly used to generate an image”. Are graphics cards, chipsets, and processors included that are part of the computer, but are involved in sending a signal to the display device? Especially the question has arisen regarding what components of a notebook or an integrated computer are covered by this criterion, since the display device and the computer are part of the same unit.

Background: This criterion was meant to provide an optional point for reducing the lead content of VDUs beyond those mandated in RoHS. The full wording of the standard follows:

Product Criterion: The VDU, including housing, batteries, cables, adapters and other peripheral equipment used to generate an image, shall not contain lead greater than 50 ppm by weight per listed part unless it can be shown that the lead is present above this threshold due to the use of recycled content.

Applies to: VDUs only, including stand-alone units and those components of an integrated unit, e.g., a notebook computer, that are directly used to generate an image. This does not apply to European RoHS Directive exemptions.

Definition: 3.1.18 video display unit: a cathode ray tube, cathode ray tube device, and flat panel screen or similar display device, including stand alone units and those components of an integrated unit, e.g. a notebook computer, that are directly used to generate an image

PVC Clarification: The interpretation of this criterion should be consistent between stand-alone and integrated VDUs. For a stand-alone VDU, the criterion clearly covers any processors, chips, boards or other components that are resident in the VDU and are required to make it work, i.e. provide power, illuminate the screen, accept and translate an image from an external source, etc. It would therefore not apply to processors, boards, or chipsets that reside in the computer and are independent of the VDU, even though they are necessary for generating an image. This same principle should apply to notebooks and integrated units. The criterion therefore covers those parts and components that are functionally equivalent to those found in a stand-alone VDU, but would not cover graphics cards, processors and other components that are typically physically separate from the stand alone VDU.

Clarifications #5 – September 2008

Clarification Request 5-1 :

Shall glass filler in plastic components be included, or not included, in the calculation of the weight of plastic in the component? Should the weight of the glass filler be added into the denominator along with the weight of the other plastic?

A corollary question is whether glass filler should be included in the numerator as part of the recycled plastic.

Background:

Glass filler is blended with resin to form a plastic with special characteristics that is used in certain internal electronic components. Other materials may also be added, including, but not limited to, flame retardants or plasticizers.

The postconsumer recycled plastic content for the product as a whole is calculated as a percentage, whereby the total amount of postconsumer plastic in all the components is divided by the total amount of plastic in the product, and multiplied by 100. PCBs and packaging are excluded from the calculation.

Note that the criterion uses the term “plastic”, versus “resin” or some equivalent. The clarification hinges on this. The term plastic (the noun) is defined as “a plastic substance”, and plastic (the adjective) is defined as “capable of being molded or modeled”. Plastic is therefore defined by its physical characteristics.

PVC Clarification 5-1:

1. The denominator – weight of plastic in the product – The weight of the glass filler, and all other additives that are blended to formulate the plastic used to make the component, shall be included in the calculation of the total weight of the plastic for the purpose of calculating postconsumer recycled content.

Rationale: Glass filler is an integral part of the plastic used to make the component and, when blended with the resin and other additives has the characteristics of a plastic material.

2. The numerator – weight of recycled plastic in the product – Glass filler that is added as glass to the plastic, regardless of whether it is recycled or virgin glass shall not be included in the calculation of the amount of recycled plastic (the numerator). However, if the source of the glass filler is from postconsumer recycled plastic that contains glass filler, it shall then be included in the calculation of the amount of recycled plastic. The same applies to other additives.

Rationale: The criteria address plastics only. As noted, the definition of plastic references its physical characteristics. Therefore, it is the physical characteristics of the source material that determines whether it is recycled plastic. In the form of glass, it is not a plastic. However, when the source of the glass is from recycled plastic that contains glass filler, it is then in the form of plastic.

Example 1: Start with a 100g part that is made of a glass filled plastic. This part is ground and formed into pellets, and reformed into a new 100g part. Even though this part has a glass content, because I have recycled the entire glass filled plastic part into a new glass filled plastic part, the postconsumer recycled content would be 100%.

Total Weight of Recycled Plastic Content in Part		100g of recycled plastic
_____________________________________	=	_______________________	= 1 x100 = 100%
Total Weight of Plastic Part		100g of total weight of part

Example 2: Start with 20g of glass fill (either virgin or recycled glass) and 80g of plastic resin. This plastic resin is 50% by weight postconsumer recycled plastic and 50% by weight virgin plastic giving a total of 40 g of recycled plastic. The glass fill is blended with the plastic resin (containing 50% recycled resin) to create a 100 g part.

Total Weight of Recycled Plastic Content in Part		40g of recycled plastic
_____________________________________	=	_______________________	= .4 x100 = 40%
Total Weight of Plastic Part		100g of total weight of part

Clarification Request 5-2:

How shall the amount of recycled feedstock be calculated in the case where the recycled feedstock material is separated into parts (either at the molecular or material level) and only some portion of the feedstock is incorporated into the final plastic? Should the full weight of recycled plastic entering the plastic manufacturing process be counted, or only the portion that makes it into the final plastic used in the product?

Background:

Some plastic manufacturing processes break down recovered plastic materials into their chemical constituents and then reformulate resins using these chemical feedstocks. Likewise, recovered plastic parts may be separated by resin type for further processing. In either case, a portion of the incoming material stream may be discarded or used in another application.

PVC Clarification 5-2:

Recovered plastic parts or material that enter the manufacturing process, but are not included in the resulting plastic material that is used in the product, shall not be counted as recycled content in the product.

Determination of the recycled content of a plastic material in a product shall be a simplified mass balance that determines the weight of recycled material that enters the manufacturing process and calculates the weight of recycled material that is included in the “total plastic (by weight) in each product” (wording from the standard).

Rationale:

The criteria clearly refer to the recycled content of the product declared to EPEAT. Therefore, any portion of recovered plastic material that is discarded or diverted to another application would not be included in this calculation.

Clarification Request 5-3:

Should certain plastic components that do not lend themselves to recycled content due to functional or performance issues be excluded from, or included in, the calculation of the amount of plastic in the product (denominator)?

Background:

A subscriber expressed the opinion that only molded plastic parts/mechanical parts are currently being counted towards the total plastic weight in the product by subscribers and in verification. They expressed that certain plastic parts due to performance issues (e.g. clarity, product safety, etc.) are not good candidates for biobased or postconsumer recycled plastics, such as cable jackets, insulating sheets, light guides, and optical films. Furthermore, the subscriber believes that this was the intention of the standard development team.

The subscriber also noted that for equipment that uses a high percentage of highly recyclable metal the only plastics in the product may be the light guides, optical films and cable jackets. The overall objective of minimizing fossil fuel use in plastics, and waste from unrecyclable plastics, is achieved, but the product is disadvantaged by not being able to claim the recycled plastic points.

All plastics in the product, regardless of their function, shall be included in the determination of the total weight of plastics in the product, except those components specifically excluded in the standard.

Rationale: The 1680 Standard does not provide a basis for excluding some plastic parts, or portions of parts, according to the function they serve, other than PCBs. PCBs (and packaging in one criterion) are specifically excluded, and therefore there is no basis to believe that the standard developers intended to exclude other plastic components.