NSF 426 Ballot Comments – Section 12
For Discussion at June 25-26 Joint Committee Meeting
Criteria Summary
12 Responsible end-of-service/end-of-life management
12.1 Prerequisites
12.1.1 Product take-back service (Corporate)
12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management (Corporate)
12.1.3 Trans-boundary movements (Corporate)
12.2 Optional Criteria
12.2.1 Publicly available record of the re-use / recycling achievement
2
12.2.2 Take-back service for de-installed equipment
1
Ballot Comment Summary – from JC members and Public Review

Total comments: 15 comments
o 12.1.1: 4 comment
o 12.1.2: 5 comments
o 12.1.3: 3 comments
o 12.2.1: 2 comments
o 12.2.2: 1 comments

No common themes
Proposed Discussion Topics for June 25-26 F2F
High Priority
1) 12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management
o Availability of certified recyclers beyond the U.S and Canada
o Relevance of these certification to server re-use facilities.
2) 12.1.3 Trans-boundary movements
Time Permitting or Assign to NSF, Individuals or Small Groups
3) Remaining comments (12.1.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.2)
Discussion Topic 1: 12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management (corporate) - Prerequisite


Name
Server
Manufacturer
Availability of certified recyclers beyond the U.S and Canada
Relevance of these certification to server re-use facilities.
Comment
Servers are primarily returned to re-use
facilities that are managed through our
internal standards. Certification to R2 and eStewards is not relevant to the processing of
servers at re-use facilities. Certification to R2
and e-Stewards is relevant to recycling
facilities.
Proposal
Proposed
Response
Chris Cleet/ITI
There is no indication that WEEELABEX and
CENELEC have accredited certification
regimes at this time.
- 1680.2 and .3 exempt lease, trade-in and
product servicing operations from this
requirement. Adding these to this criterion
connotes a significant change in operations.
Michael
Kirschner/
Design Chain
Associates
12.1.2 – The problem with this criterion,
particularly as a required criterion, is that it
is limited to the US/Canada and EU. There
are no certified eStewards or R2 facilities
outside these regions. And WEEELABEX and
CEN 50625 only apply to the EU. Therefore,
products can never conform to requirements
and obtain even Bronze status outside the
EU and North America unless these
certification bodies are working on certifying
recyclers in other markets.
Tim Mann/IBM
We do not support this criterion. IBM
already does extensive evaluations of its
product recycling suppliers. We do not
believe that additional certifications are
necessary or should be required.
We have seen no evidence of any significant
concerns with electronic recyclers
contracted by manufacturers. It makes no
sense to add additional requirements to
manufacturer programs, making them more
costly and expensive to use when users can
send their used servers to anyone that they
choose.
Many, but not all of IBM’s electronic
recyclers have been certified to these
standards in the U.S. However, it will be
difficult to identify certified recyclers in
many countries.
Wayne
Rifer/GEC
Criterion 12.1.2 requires that manufacturers
use reuse or treatment facilities that are
certified to a qualified recycling standard by
a certification body (CB) accredited by an
International Accreditation Forum member
accreditation body. In many countries such
certified reuse or treatment facilities are not
yet available, even though accredited CBs in
some cases may be available to certify to a
qualified recycling standard. EPEAT’s
experience with the 1680.2 imaging
equipment standard and discussions with
manufacturers indicate that the lack of
availability of already certified recyclers is
preventing manufacturers from declaring
products in such countries and warrants a
Insert the following into
12.1.2 following the
paragraph that begins with:
“These requirements
apply….”:
In countries where there are
no reuse or treatment
facilities certified by
accredited certification
bodies to a qualified recycling
standard, manufacturers shall
have 18 months before use of
such certified facilities is
required for conformance
with this criterion. During
that grace period
grace period in which recyclers can become
certified. In some countries, manufacturers
themselves must drive the market for
recyclers to become certified. If the lack of
certified recyclers is preventing
manufacturers from declaring products in
such countries, and the market is demanding
NSF 426 conformant-products, this shortfall
of certified recyclers could be resolved by
the market given appropriate time.
The proposal to add an 18 month grace
period, which will allow time for recyclers to
become certified in order to offer services to
manufacturers, should reduce the barrier to
manufacturer use of the NSF 426 standard.
However, if a manufacturer registers a
product without use of certified service
providers, and instead takes advantage of
the 18 month grace period, there will need
to be a mechanism to follow up after 18
months to ensure that once the grace period
is over, the manufacturer now manages their
taken back products according to this
required criterion.
In order to determine if the 18 month grace
period is in fact used to move toward
certified service providers, it will be essential
to monitor progress in the availability of
appropriately certified recyclers over time
after the standard is available.
Manufacturers should be able to provide
evidence of their efforts to secure certified
service providers. The JC may need to
consider further modifications to the
criterion in the future to alter the 18 month
grace period, if manufacturers are unable to
secure certified service providers. Otherwise,
this may result in manufacturers having to
un-declare products at the end of the grace
period due to the lack of certified recycling
services.
The grace period should enhance
declarations to the standard in many
countries by reducing the barrier of 12.1.2.
In addition, providing manufacturers with
additional time to secure qualified recycling
services should provide a market incentive
for the creation of the accreditation and
certification systems worldwide.
manufacturers may, for
conformance with this
criterion, either:
• Utilize reuse or treatment
facilities that meet
requirements a) through i) in
criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE
1680.2-2012 Standard for the
Environmental Assessment of
Imaging Equipment, as
confirmed through second- or
third-party audits, or
• Legally export taken-back
materials to a facility in
another country that can
legally import such materials
and that is certified to a
qualified recycling standard
by an accredited CB.
The grace period begins for
each manufacturer at the
time the manufacturer first
declares products in the
country; the grace period is
specific to the country where
products are declared.
12.1.2 Revision options:
1) Retain as is
2) Consider revisions
a. Remove product re-use operations from criteria (Server Manufacturer comment)
b. Provide exemption for trade-in, lease, and warranty return programs (Chris Cleet comment)
c. Add text to address current lack of certified recyclers outside of U.S. See proposed language
below submitted by Wayne Rifer.
3) Delete criterion (Tim Mann comment)
Wayne Rifer proposal
Following the paragraph that begins with: “These requirements apply….” add:
In countries where there are no reuse or treatment facilities certified by accredited certification bodies to a
qualified recycling standard, manufacturers shall have 18 months before use of such certified facilities is
required for conformance with this criterion. During that grace period manufacturers may, for conformance
with this criterion, either:
• Utilize reuse or treatment facilities that meet requirements a) through i) in criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE
1680.2-2012 Standard for the Environmental Assessment of Imaging Equipment, as confirmed through
second- or third-party audits, or
• Legally export taken-back materials to a facility in another country that can legally import such materials
and that is certified to a qualified recycling standard by an accredited CB.
The grace period begins for each manufacturer at the time the manufacturer first declares products in the
country; the grace period is specific to the country where products are declared.
Revision option a: request to remove reuse
12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management (corporate)
In jurisdictions where manufacturer can control the selection of the initial reuse or treatment
operator, manufacturer shall ensure that all equipment and, or components (including lease returns,
warranty returns, trade-ins) forming the whole or part of the product covered by criterion 12.1.1 are
prepared for reuse and, or initially treated at a reuse or treatment facility, which is independently
certified by an accredited certification body to one or more of the following recognized standards:

Responsible Recycling (“R2”) Standard for Electronics Recyclers;

e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment;

WEEELABEX Treatment Standard; and, or

CENELEC – EN 50625 Collection, logistics and treatment requirements for WEEE.
Certification bodies shall be accredited by an International Accreditation Forum member
accreditation body (http://www.laf.nu/) to certify to the specific standard identified.
The NSF Joint Committee on the Environmental Leadership Standard for Servers may add
standards to the above list of recognized standards, provided the standard meets requirements a)
through i) in criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE 1680.2-2012 Standard for the Environmental Assessment
of Imaging Equipment.
These requirements apply to any products returned under 12.1.1 to any facility/operator whether
owned by the manufacturer or an agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer.
To demonstrate conformance with this criterion, manufacturer shall provide valid certificates held by
initial reuse or treatment facilities utilized at the time of product registration and certification, and
maintain valid certificates on an on-going basis (whether facilities are owned by manufacturer or an
agent of manufacturer.)
This requirement is applicable only in countries or regions for which the product is declared to
Revision option b: request to add exemptions
A
12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management (corporate)
In jurisdictions where manufacturer can control the selection of the initial reuse or treatment operator,
manufacturer shall ensure that all equipment and, or components (including lease returns, warranty
returns, trade-ins) forming the whole or part of the product covered by criterion 12.1.1 are prepared for
reuse and, or initially treated at a reuse or treatment facility, which is independently certified by an
accredited certification body to one or more of the following recognized standards:

Responsible Recycling (“R2”) Standard for Electronics Recyclers;

e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment;

WEEELABEX Treatment Standard; and, or

CENELEC – EN 50625 Collection, logistics and treatment requirements for WEEE.
Certification bodies shall be accredited by an International Accreditation Forum member accreditation
body (http://www.laf.nu/) to certify to the specific standard identified.
The NSF Joint Committee on the Environmental Leadership Standard for Servers may add standards
to the above list of recognized standards, provided the standard meets requirements a) through i) in
criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE 1680.2-2012 Standard for the Environmental Assessment of Imaging
Equipment.
These requirements apply to any products returned under 12.1.1 to any facility/operator whether owned by the
manufacturer or an agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer. The following programs operated by the
manufacturer (or their contractual agent) are exempt from this requirement:
 Management of leased products where the manufacturer (or their contractual agent) retains legal
ownership.
 Trade-in/exchange programs where the customer surrenders the product to the manufacturer (or their
contractual agent) in return for compensation or replacement product.
 Product servicing and/or warranty programs, operated by the manufacturer or their contractual agent,
where a product (or similar product) is returned to a customer.
To demonstrate conformance with this criterion, manufacturer shall provide valid certificates held by
initial reuse or treatment facilities utilized at the time of product registration and certification, and
maintain valid certificates on an on-going basis (whether facilities are owned by manufacturer or an
agent of manufacturer.)
This requirement is applicable only in countries or regions for which the product is declared to conform
to this Standard.
Revision option c: to address availability of certified recyclers
12.1.2 End-of-service/end-of-life management (corporate)
In jurisdictions where manufacturer can control the selection of the initial reuse or treatment operator
service provider, manufacturer shall ensure that all equipment and, or components (including lease
returns, warranty returns, trade-ins) forming the whole or part of the product covered by criterion
12.1.1 are prepared for reuse and, or initially treated at a reuse or treatment facility by an initial
service provider that, which is independently certified by an accredited certification body to one or
more of the following recognized standards:

Responsible Recycling (“R2”) Standard for Electronics Recyclers;

e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment;

WEEELABEX Treatment Standard; and, or

CENELEC – EN 50625 Collection, logistics and treatment requirements for WEEE.
Certification bodies shall be accredited by an International Accreditation Forum member
accreditation body (http://www.laf.nu/) to certify to the specific standard identified.
The NSF Joint Committee on the Environmental Leadership Standard for Servers may add
standards to the above list of recognized standards, provided the standard meets requirements a)
through i) in criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE 1680.2-2012 Standard for the Environmental Assessment
of Imaging Equipment.
These requirements apply to any products returned under 12.1.1 to any facility/operator whether
owned by the manufacturer or an agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer. In countries where
there are no initial service providers certified by accredited certification bodies to a qualified
recycling standard, manufacturers shall have 18 months before use of such certified initial service
providers is required for conformance with this criterion. During that grace period manufacturers
may,
for
conformance
with
this
criterion,
either:
• Utilize initial service providers that meet requirements a) through i) in criterion 4.6.1.2 of the IEEE
1680.2-2012 Standard for the Environmental Assessment of Imaging Equipment, as confirmed
through
secondor
third-party
audits,
or
• Legally export taken-back materials to a facility in another country that can legally import such
materials and that is certified to a qualified recycling standard by an accredited certification body.
The grace period begins for each manufacturer at the time the manufacturer first declares products
in the country; the grace period is specific to the country where products are declared.
To demonstrate conformance with this criterion, manufacturer shall provide valid certificates held by
initial reuse or treatment facilities utilized at the time of product registration and certification, and
maintain valid certificates on an on-going basis (whether facilities are owned by manufacturer or an
agent of manufacturer.)
This requirement is applicable only in countries or regions for which the product is declared to
conform to this Standard.
Discussion Topic 2: 12.1.3 Trans-boundary movements
12.1.3 Trans-boundary movements (corporate) - Prerequisite
Name
Comment
Proposal
Cate Berard/
DOE
The second bullet in criterion 12.1.3 implies
that the manufacturer's management system
applies only to "a manufacturer or its service
providers." However, the language in the
first sentence seems to imply that this
criterion applies to anyone handling any
product, component or material that was
or came out of a product meeting the
standard. Which is it?
Patty Dillon
12.1.3, a prerequisite criterion, requires a
certified management system which could be
a barrier for small companies. In Section 13
on Corporate Performance there was a
deliberate decision not to require a certified
EMS as a prerequisite criteria. To encourage
(or at least not pose a barrier to) small
business participation, the JC should consider
whether criterion 12.1.3 should be a
prerequisite. Should the standard be
consistent on this issue?
We do not support this criterion. While we
fully agree that manufacturers must comply
with all applicable laws governing
transboundary shipment of used products,
we see no need for this requirement to be
included in a Server standard along with
overly prescriptive requirements on how
manufacturers would demonstrate
compliance with the criterion.
The JC should determine, and
specify, which actors this
criterion applies to. If it is just
manufacturers and its service
providers that should be
specified. If the management
system is expected to be
configured in a way to reach
all possible external handlers,
then the language about the
manufacturer or its service
provider needs to be revised.
Request JC discussion of issue
Tim
Mann/IBM
Proposed
Response
12.1.3 Revision options:
1) Retain as is
2) Consider revisions
a. Clarify applicable of criterion to downstream handlers (Cate Berard comment)
b. Remove 3rd party certification requirement (Patty Dillon comment)
3) Make criterion optional (Patty Dillon comment)
4) Delete criterion (Tim Mann comment)
12.1.3 Trans-boundary movements (corporate)
If equipment and components collected pursuant to criteria 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 and materials derived
from them are traded across national boundaries anywhere from the point of manufacturer take-back
to the point of final disposition of the resulting devices and, or materials, manufacturer shall have an
in-house management system which incorporates the elements necessary to achieve ongoing
compliance with applicable trade laws in all countries involved (export, transit, and import). Such a
management system must be independently certified to a globally accepted management system
standard, such as ISO 14001 or ISO 9001, by a certification body accredited by an IAF-member
accreditation body to certify to the specified management system standard.
To demonstrate conformity to this criterion, manufacturer shall provide objective evidence of both:
Verification requirements:
a) Current and valid certificate to a globally-accepted management system standard; and
 b) Inclusion of applicable trade laws in the manufacturer’s management system relative to
exporting, transiting, and importing countries; i.e., if a manufacturer or its service providers ship
any of these materials across borders, the manufacturer’s management system (including ‘legal
and other requirements’, ‘operational control’, ‘internal audit’, ‘corrective action plans’, and
‘management review’) must explicitly address applicable laws in all countries involved in the trade.
Discussion Topic 3: Remaining criteria in Section 12
12.1.1 Product take-back service (corporate)
Name
Chris
Cleet/ITI
Tim
Mann/IBM
Comment
It is not clear if this means a manufacturer's
own products or all products (servers)
declared to conform to this standard are
covered by this criterion and required to be
accepted by the manufacturer program.
While we are generally OK with this
requirement, we believe the criteria
established for notification regarding the
service are overly prescriptive. A simple
website notification with information on how
to obtain and use the service should be
adequate.
The fact is that servers are already recycled to
a high degree by both manufacturers (and
their selected recyclers) and third party
recyclers. There are no shortage of qualified
recyclers that will recycle servers in countries
where we will likely certify products.
Jonathan
Wood/DEFRA
However, there are differences between the
categories in 12.1.1 and in 12.2.1, where
energy recovery and disposal are
separated. In addition, should there be an
option to diverge from this hierarchy where it
can be demonstrated to be more
environmental beneficial?
Proposal
Proposed
Response
Cate
Berard/DOE
Criteria 12.1.1, 12.1.3 and 12.2.1 require the
manufacturer to obtain/maintain/provide
"objective evidence." This seems like an odd
and unnecessary term. Is there subjective
evidence this language is trying to exclude?
Delete the term "objective."
12.1.1 Revision options:
1) Retain as is
2) Consider revisions
a. Change notification requirements to minimum website notification (Tim Mann
comment)
b. Delete “objective” before “evidence” (Cate Berard comment
c. Add option to diverge from hierarchy (Jonathon Wood comment)
d. Make hierarchy consistent with 12.2.1 (Jonathon Wood comment)
3) Delete criterion
12.1.1 Product take-back service (corporate)
Manufacturer shall ensure provision of, either directly or through a third party, a country-wide or
region-wide take-back service to collect and process products declared and formerly declared to
conform to this standard for reuse and, or end-of-life management. Manufacturer shall offer the
take-back service option either directly or through its distribution channels to the first customer; the
customer may choose to utilize the take-back service option or not.
The service shall incorporate a management hierarchy to promote the extended and best possible
use of the equipment and components, in a manner that is protective of human health and the
environment, as follows:
1) Reuse of whole equipment;
2) Reuse of components;
3) Recycling for material recovery;
4) Disposal of materials in energy recovery facilities and, or solid and hazardous landfillfacilities permitted in accordance with applicable legislation.
Notification of the take-back service, including how to utilize the service(s), shall be available in
sales information and product documentation, including website-based sales information and user
manuals in formats provided to customers (e.g., website, compact disc, hard copy) at the time of
purchase/lease. The information shall be maintained and updated on the manufacturer’s website.
The manufacturer shall declare the URL of the public disclosure.
Manufacturer shall disclose both at the point of sale and the point of the take-back service if there
will be any direct costs to the purchaser/lessee for the take-back service.
To demonstrate conformance with this criterion, the manufacturer shall obtain and maintain the
following objective evidence:
 Of the manufacturers’ conformity with this criterion throughout the distribution channel to
the first customer;

That the manufacturer offers the take-back service defined in this criterion for:
o Customers in the country or region where the product is declared to conform to this
Standard; and
o All types of selling technique (e.g., distance-selling or through distribution network);
 That the manufacturer notifies the purchaser/lessee of the availability of take-back
services, that includes how to utilize the take-back service;
 Of the manufacturers’ compliance with national legislation/legal requirements and to
confirm that compliant and environmentally sound management has been employed (to the
12.2.1 Publicly available record of the reuse/recycling achievement (corporate)
Name
Comment
Chris
Cleet/ITI
In order to meet this requirement,
manufacturers will need to separate or
segregate returns of products (to know which
meet the server standard requirements). It is
very cost intensive to do this.
Tim
Mann/IBM
We do not support this criterion. We publish
this information in our annual environmental
report on a corporate basis. Our program
covers our activities globally. We see no need
to report separately for each country where
we offer product takeback services.
Proposal
Proposed
Response
12.2.1 Revision options:
1) Retain as is
2) Delete criterion (implied by Chris Cleet & Tim Mann comments)
12.2.2 Take-back service for de-installed equipment
Name
Comment
Michael
Kirschner/
Design Chain
Associates
12.2.2 – Please explicitly clarify that the
requirement is limited to equipment and
products from other manufacturers that their
product replaces. Manufacturers do not have
to take back anything the customer happens
to have on hand they would like to recycle.
Proposal
Proposed
Response
12.2.2 Revision options:
1) Retain as is
2) Consider revision to clarify that requirement is limited to products that are replaced
(Mike Kirschner comment)