EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
EPEAT CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
4.1.1 Reduction of use of hazardous substances
4.1.1.1 Required—Compliance with provisions of European RoHS Directive
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
The EU RoHS Directive, formerly known as Directive
2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
electrical and electronic equipment, as amended by
2005/618/EC and then by 2011/65/EU, stipulates maximum
concentration values (MCVs) by weight for the presence of each
substance within homogeneous materials.
Elements of a conformance assurance system are outlined in
the United Kingdom (UK) RoHS Enforcement Guidance
document.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to the EU RoHS requirements
through effective control of the supply chain
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.1.1 Verification Requirement
4.1-1
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to the
EU RoHS requirements through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system (CAS)
that covers the materials restrictions of EU RoHS used by
manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers
2. Subscriber to provide list of components in the product (i.e.
BOM).
3. Further information about relevant parts selected by
Qualified Verifier will be requested in order to assess active
implementation of CAS.
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Technical Documentation as specified in EN 50581Technical documentation for the assessment of electrical
and electronic products with respect to the restriction of
hazardous substances
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752 or
JIG)
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Corrective actions
4.1-2
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
3. Questions to assess conformance
Does the described conformance assurance system adequately
provide control of the supply chain to the specified restricted
material requirement?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data demonstrating that
they check/monitor to assure conformity to the requirements
of this criterion?
Does the evidence presented demonstrate conformity to this
criterion?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
Qualified Verifier may choose to request specific data that is
consistent with the CAS for selected parts.
4.1-3
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.2 Cadmium
4.1.2.1 Optional—Further reduction of the use of EU RoHS Directive hazardous
substances (cadmium)
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
The EU RoHS Directive, formally known as Directive 2002/95/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
electrical and electronic equipment, in its latest edition,
stipulates allowable thresholds for the presence of each
regulated substance within homogeneous materials.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.2.1 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
4.1-4
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Provide a list of all RoHS exempted cadmium applications
that apply to this product.
2. Description of the conformance assurance system that
ensures that for all listed applications, cadmium is not used
in this product for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers.
3. Provide relevant evidence / documentation that
demonstrate for the RoHS exempted applications selected
by Qualified Verifier meet RoHS requirements.
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item
of evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
List of RoHS exempted cadmium applications that apply to
this product
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is monitored
by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims and
adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures showing any exemptions
used (for example IPC 1752 or JIG)
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance assurance system adequately
provide control of the supply chain to ensure cadmium
exemptions are not used for this product?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data demonstrating that
they check/monitor to assure conformity with the requirements
of this criterion?
Are any exemptions for cadmium being claimed on this product
4.1-5
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
that do not sunset within one year and were in effect at the time
of registration to this particular optional criterion?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence/documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
Cadmium exemptions with a sunset date within one year of the
registration to this particular optional criterion are excluded.
For this criterion, the term “time of product registration” refers
to the time of declaration to this particular optional criterion.
Qualified Verifiers should check list of exemptions at EPEAT
headquarters.
4.1-6
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.3 Mercury
4.1.3.1 Required—Reporting on amount of mercury content in light sources
Verification Guidance
For products that do not contain light sources, the manufacturer may declare “Not Applicable”
on the registry.
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
IEC 62554 ed 1.0, Sample preparation for measurement of
mercury level in fluorescent lamps, published 2011-08-19 may
be used in preparing samples for subsequent measurement of
mercury content of lamps.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation showing mercury content per light source
or access to a representative aggregated mercury content
report
4.1.3.1 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation showing mercury content per light source or access to a representative
aggregated mercury content report
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Declaration of number of mercury containing light sources
in product, the amount of mercury in each light source used
or applicable reporting range AND documentation to
support listed amount(s)
OR
2. A copy of or access to a representative aggregated mercury
content report that applies to the light sources used in the
product
3. If manufacturer declares NA, demonstration that the
4.1-7
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
product does not contain light sources.
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
List of light sources and suppliers
•
Analytical test data for mercury content
•
Supplier specifications/tech sheets
•
Aggregated mercury content report
•
Method for determining level of mercury
•
If manufacturer declares NA, evidence that the product
does not contain light sources.
Does the amount of mercury and number of light sources used
in the product match that which was claimed in the registry?
Does the supplied data (aggregated test report, supplier tech
sheets etc.) support the claimed amount of Mercury?
What is the method for determining level of mercury?
4. Evaluation guidance
None
4.1.3.2 Optional— Use of non-mercury containing light sources
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
None available.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain or declaration of demonstrated
use of non-mercury containing technology
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
4.1-8
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.3.2 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain or declaration of demonstrated use
of non-mercury containing technology
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Documentation of the type of light source being used
AND one of the following:
2. Documentation that the light source technology does not
require the presence of mercury;
OR
3. Description of the conformance assurance system used by
manufacturer for relevant manufacturing operations in the
supply chain that assures that mercury containing light
sources are not used in the product
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
•
Product specifications showing light source technology
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Description of light source technology from a reputable
third-party source
•
Manufacturing/technical documentation from lamp
manufacturer
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Analytical test data demonstrating no mercury in light
source, including test method
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
4.1-9
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Internal and/or external audit records
Does the provided documentation show evidence that the light
source technology used does not require the presence of
mercury?
OR
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified restricted material
requirement?
4. Evaluation guidance
The most likely choice of manufacturers should be to show that
the light sources used are not using mercury as opposed to a
conformance assurance system.
WLED and OLED technology do not have intentionally added
mercury. Traditional CCFL technology does.
If CCFL technology is indicated by the subscriber, they must
provide details of how the CCFL they are using does not require
mercury.
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
4.1-10
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.4 REACH
4.1.4.1 Optional— Reduction of substances on the EU REACH Candidate List of
SVHCs
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
EU Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006: Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
The Candidate List of SVHCs is maintained at the European
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Website (www.echa.europa.eu). The
criteria used to classify SVHCs can be found in Article 57 of the
REACH regulation.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.4.1 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
4.1-11
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system that
covers the REACH Candidate List of SVHCs and REACH
Annex XIV (List of Substances Subject to Authorization)
used by manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing
operations and/or suppliers
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the conformance
assurance system
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
IPC 1752, IEC 62474, or similar documents which
demonstrate absence of any REACH Candidate List SVHC
that could be found in EEE
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified REACH Candidate
List of SVHC’s and REACH Annex XIV (List of Substances Subject
to Authorization) requirements?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data demonstrating that
they check/monitor to assure conformity to the requirements
of this criterion?
Are all substances on the Candidate List of SVHC that have a
Date of Inclusion on the candidate list of one year or more prior
to the date the product in question was first registered
4.1-12
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
included?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence/documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
“That ship with product” applies to both the product and
external attachments/accessories that ship with the product.
A consumable is not considered an attachment or accessory
with respect to this criterion.
This requirement limits the use of SVHCs.
In this criterion “to the date the product in question is first
registered” refers to the date this criterion is first claimed.
Direct link to Candidate List of SVHCs can be found here:
www.echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.
4.1-13
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.5 Batteries
4.1.5.1 Required—Compliance with provisions of European Union Battery
Directive
Verification Guidance
For products that do not contain batteries, the manufacturer may declare not applicable on the
registry.
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
European Commission Directive 2006/66/EC of 6 September
2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and
accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC.
This criterion only applies to those substances for which the
Battery Directive establishes threshold limits on the amount of
the substance in batteries. This criterion does not apply to
those substances only subject to the Battery Directive labeling
requirements.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.5.1 Verification Requirement
4.1-14
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system that
addresses the material content limits for batteries as
specified by Article 4 of EU Battery Directive that is used by
manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the conformance
assurance system
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752, IEC
62474 or similar)
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified restricted material
requirement?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data demonstrating that
they check/monitor for conformity to the requirements of this
criterion?
4.1-15
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
This criterion only applies to those substances (mercury and
cadmium) for which Article 4 of the EU Battery Directive
establishes threshold limits on the amount of the substance in
batteries. This criterion does not apply to those substances
only subject to the EU Battery Directive’s Article 21 labeling
requirements.
As of the date of these protocols, the list of hazardous
substances includes: mercury which may not be more than
0.0005% by weight, and cadmium which may not be more than
0.002% by weight, but mercury in button cells shall not be more
than 2% by weight.
4.1-16
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.6 Organohalogens
4.1.6.1 Required— Reducing BFR/CFR/PVC content of external plastic casings
Verification Guidance
For products that do not have plastic casings weighing >25 grams, manufacturer may declare
"Not Applicable" on the registry.
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
None available.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
c)
Relevant Definitions
If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable
threshold, documentation that demonstrates that the
source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs, CFRs, or
PVC
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.6.1 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
4.1-17
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system for the
use of Br and Cl attributable to BFR/CFR/PVC in external
plastic casings as identified in the criterion used by
manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the conformance
assurance system
3. List of external plastic casings over 25 g used in the product
4. Are any of the three exemptions being claimed? If so,
which one(s)? Additional information will be required to
justify meeting any exemptions claimed.
Note: Claiming an exemption does not preclude providing
evidence of conformance.
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752, IEC
62474 or similar)
•
Corrective actions
In the event that exemptions are claimed:
•
If claiming postconsumer recycled content exemption,
documentation of content in accordance with
verification protocols for 4.2.1.1 and demonstration
that the criterion is met at 0.3% threshold.
•
If claiming uses of Br or Cl that are not classified as
4.1-18
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
BFRs, CFRs or PVC, documentation of use, identification
of location and molecular form must be provided if Br
or Cl content exceeds the applicable threshold.
3. Questions to assess conformance
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified restricted material
requirements in external plastic casings?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data demonstrating that
they check/monitor for conformity to the requirements of this
criterion?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
*See the criterion for more detailed description of exemptions
for this requirement.
4.1.6.1 Verification Requirement
c) If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable threshold, documentation that
demonstrates that the source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs, CFRs, or PVC
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. List of external plastic casings over 25 g that contain Br or Cl
above the applicable threshold limit (either 1000 ppm, or
3000 ppm, if recycled content > 25%)*
2. Documentation that identifies the origin of the Br or Cl in
the part
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
List of external plastic casing over 25 g
•
Technical documents/spec sheets/MSDS that indicate
composition of the plastics used and if Br or Cl is present it
is not in a BFR, CFR or PVC
•
Analytical test data
Does the provided documentation show that the Br or Cl in the
external plastic casing is from something other than BFRs, CFRs,
or PVC?
4.1-19
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4. Evaluation guidance
It may be that there are no external plastic casings over 25 g
that contain Br or Cl above the threshold limit in which case this
verification requirement would not apply.
*See the criterion for exemptions/expansions of this
requirement
4.1.6.2 Optional— Eliminating or reducing BFR/CFR content of printed circuit
board laminates
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
IEC 61249-2-21 establishes limits on elemental bromine (900
ppm) and chlorine (900 ppm), and a combined limit of (1500
ppm). Demonstration of conformance with the threshold limits
established in IEC 61249-2-21 meets the requirements of this
criterion.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
c) If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable
threshold, documentation that demonstrates that the
source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs or CFRs
4.1.6.2 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system which demonstrates conformity to
this criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system for the
use of Br and Cl attributable to BFR/CFR in printed circuit
board laminates as identified in the criterion used by
4.1-20
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the description of the
conformance assurance system
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752, IEC
62474 or similar)
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified restricted material
requirement?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidenceprovide evidence/data that
they monitor/check for conformity to the requirements of this
criterion?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
See references and details above.
4.1.6.2 Verification Requirement
4.1-21
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
c) If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable threshold, documentation that
demonstrates that the source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs or CFRs
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. List of circuit board laminates with Br or Cl exceeding 1000
ppm by weight.
2. Documentation that identifies the origin of the Br or Cl in
the part
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
•
List of circuit board laminates
•
Technical documents/spec sheets/MSDS that indicate
composition of the laminates being used and that
brominated or chlorinated substances in use are NOT from
BFRs or CFRs
•
Analytical test data
3. Questions to assess conformance
Does the provided documentation show that the Br or Cl in the
circuit board laminate is from something other than BFRs or
CFRs?
4. Evaluation guidance
It may be that there are no circuit board laminates with Br or Cl
exceeding 1000 ppm by weight in which this verification does
not apply.
4.1.6.3 Optional— Eliminating or reducing BFR/CFR/PVC content of product
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
None Available.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain
c) If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable
4.1-22
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
threshold, documentation that demonstrates that the
source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs, CFRs, or
PVC
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.6.3 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system which demonstrates conformity to
this criterion through effective control of the supply chain
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system for the
use of Br and Cl attributable to BFR/CFR/PVC in all plastic
materials as identified in the criterion used by
manufacturer for all relevant manufacturing operations
and/or suppliers
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the description of the
conformance assurance system
3. List of all plastic materials (regardless of weight) used in the
product, amount of postconsumer recycled content, the
amount of Br and Cl used in each and flame retardant (if
any) identified
4.1-23
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Analytical test data for high risk parts
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752, IEC
62474 or similar)
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance system adequately provide
control of the supply chain to the specified restricted material
requirements in ALL plastic materials?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data that they
check/monitor to assure conformity to the requirements of this
criterion?
Does the list of plastic parts indicate the use of Br or Cl above
the applicable threshold limits*?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
*See the criterion for exemptions/expansions of this
requirement.
4.1.6.3 Verification Requirement
c) If the bromine or chlorine content exceeds the applicable threshold, documentation that
4.1-24
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
demonstrates that the source of the bromine or chlorine is not from BFRs, CFRs, or PVC
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. List of all plastic materials that contain Br or Cl above the
applicable threshold limit (either 1000 ppm or 3000 ppm,
depending upon recycled content)*
2. Documentation that identifies the origin of the Br or Cl in
the part
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
•
List of all plastic materials
•
Technical documents/spec sheets/MSDS that indicate
composition of the plastics used and if Br or Cl is present it
is not in a BFR, CFR or PVC
•
Analytical test data
3. Questions to assess conformance
Does the provided documentation show that the Br or Cl in the
plastic materials is from something other than BFRs, CFRs, or
PVC?
4. Evaluation guidance
It may be that there are no plastic materials that contain Br or
Cl above the threshold limit in which case this verification
requirement would not apply.
*See the criterion for exemptions/expansions of this
requirement
4.1-25
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.7 Manufacturing Chemicals
4.1.7.1 Optional— Reduce fluorinated gas emissions resulting from flat panel
display manufacturing
Verification Guidance
Manufacturers shall declare "Not Applicable" for this criterion on the registry for products
that do not contain flat panel displays manufactured with F-GHGs.
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
None
References and Details
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Volume 3 Chapter 6, page.6.20
U.S. EPA Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1.0, March
2010.
For example, if a supplier were to use F-GHGs in 20 dry etching
lines and the cleaning of 10 chambers, at a minimum, the
supplier would need control technology installed for 18 of the
dry etching lines and for 9 of the chambers. Installation for 17
dry etching lines and 10 chambers would not qualify. Similarly,
installation for 20 lines and 7 chambers would not satisfy this
criterion. If the supplier were to have an additional type of
operation that uses F-GHGs for flat panel display production,
this criterion would require control technology to be installed
for at least 90% of that equipment as well.
Suppliers may determine success in recovery, destruction, or
removal of 90% of the F-GHGs by using the U.S. EPA Protocol
for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in
Electronics Manufacturing (available at
http://www.epa.gov/semiconductorpfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf) or another nationally
acceptable method that has been demonstrated to produce
results equivalent to or exceeding the accuracy and precision of
EPA’s DRE Protocol, where the relative error of true fraction
emitted does not exceed 5%. Where suppliers are using other
abatement systems, such as centralized abatement systems,
measurements can be performed using a nationally acceptable
method that has been demonstrated to produce results where
4.1-26
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
the relative error of true fraction emitted does not exceed 5%.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Supplier letter which includes baseline and conformance
assurance information, specifically in the following:
1) Declaration that control technologies designed
specifically for F-GHG emission control cover at least
90% of the equipment used in each and every type
of operation that uses F-GHGs in the production of
flat panel displays
2) Declaration that the control technologies are
designed specifically to recover or destroy F-GHGs,
and are installed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the control technology supplier's
specifications
3) Declaration that the control technology supplier and
the flat panel display supplier have created a
maintenance plan that ensures that the
specifications are being met
4.1.7.1 Verification Requirement
b) Supplier letter which includes baseline and conformance assurance information
specifically in the following:
1) Declaration that control technologies designed specifically for F-GHG emission control
cover at least 90% of the equipment used in each and every type of operation that uses
F-GHGs in the production of flat panel displays
2) Declaration that the control technologies are designed specifically to recover or
destroy F-GHGs, and are installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the
control technology supplier's specifications
3) Declaration that the control technology supplier and the flat panel display supplier
have created a maintenance plan that ensures that the specifications are being met
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. List of suppliers of the flat panel display(s) used in the
product
4.1-27
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
2. Letter from each supplier regarding current compliance to
F-GHG emission control as specified in the criterion
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
List of flat panel display suppliers
•
Letters of conformity from suppliers
•
Audit reports
Has the manufacturer provided a letter from all flat panel
display suppliers that indicates they are using appropriate FGHG emission controls covering at least 90% of the equipment
used in each and every operation that uses F-GHG in
production of flat panel displays?
Does the supplier declaration demonstrate that the control
technology was installed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the control technology supplier’s
specifications?
4. Evaluation guidance
An example of “each and every operation is as follows. If a
supplier were to use F-GHGs in 20 dry etching lines and the
cleaning of 10 chambers, at a minimum, the supplier would
need control technology installed for 18 of the dry etching lines
and for 9 of the chambers. Installation for 17 dry etching lines
and 10 chambers would not qualify. Similarly, installation for 20
lines and 7 chambers would not satisfy this criterion. If the
supplier were to have an additional type of operation that uses
F-GHGs for flat panel display production, this criterion would
require control technology to be installed for at least 90% of
that equipment as well.
This criterion requires the installation of control technology for
90% of operations, and does not require that 90% of F-GHGs
are recovered or destroyed, or that a flat panel supplier
measures recovery, destruction, or removal of F-GHGs. Rather,
the criterion requires a declaration from the supplier(s) of flat
panel displays used in the product that F-GHG control
technologies were installed and are operated and maintained.
4.1-28
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
4.1.8 Safer Alternatives
4.1.8.1 Optional— Inventory of intentionally added chemicals residing in the
product
Verification Guidance
Product Verification Committee
Clarifications
References and Details
None
JIG-101 and IEC 62474 declarable substances lists.
The criterion does not require public disclosure, but only
internal documentation.
Verification Requirements
a) Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification
Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that
demonstrates conformity to this criterion through effective
control of the supply chain.
Relevant Definitions
Conformance assurance system: A process to ensure
conformity to a design requirement where the key
consideration is control of the supply chain of components,
materials, packaging and/or services, and can also include
recyclers, test laboratories and even internal designers. A
conformance assurance system will include elements
addressing the following elements: Plan (i.e. a description of
the requirement to the supplier), Do (i.e. the collection of
documents that show conformity), Check (i.e. demonstration of
how conformance is assured), and Act (i.e. corrective action).
4.1.8.1 Verification Requirement
b) Documentation of a conformance assurance system that demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain.
Verification Protocols
1. Request for data submission to
subscriber
1. Description of the conformance assurance system for
collection of IPC 1752, IEC 62474 or similar documents
listing amounts used by manufacturer for all relevant
manufacturing operations and/or suppliers
4.1-29
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.
EPEAT Conformity Assessment Protocols
4.1 Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Version 1 – November 2012
2. Provide relevant evidence/documentation that
demonstrates conformity based on the conformance
assurance system
2. Examples of potential evidence for
conformance – more than one item of
evidence may be provided such that
conformance is adequately
demonstrated
3. Questions to assess conformance
•
Documentation of conformance assurance system
•
Bill of Materials and list of suppliers for product
•
Quality/restricted materials/purchasing control system,
records, policy, contracts, specifications and/or procedure
•
Restricted material program documents for internal
operations, OEM/ODMs, suppliers, integrators
•
Data/evidence that conformity to requirements is
monitored by Subscriber to check validity of supplier claims
and adherence to specifications.
•
Internal and/or external audit records
•
Declarations of Conformity signed by supplier
•
Material composition disclosures (for example IPC 1752, IEC
62474 or similar)
•
Corrective actions
Does the described conformance system adequately provide for
the collection of data in the supply chain for JIG-101 or IEC
62474 materials?
Is there an obvious Plan-Do-Check-Act process to the described
conformance assurance system?
Did the Subscriber provide evidence/data that they
monitor/check to assure conformity with the requirements of
this criterion?
4. Evaluation guidance
The evidence/documentation that would be expected shall be
based on the conformance assurance system.
4.1-30
Please note, this document is intended to be used as a companion guidance document to the IEEE
1680.2 standard. Please refer to the 1680.2 document for the exact product criterion details.