Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
During the Server Technical Committee (TC) work in the summer and fall of 2012 individual
committee members proposed new criteria for the server standard. The proposed new criteria are
provided below, and organized by environmental performance category.
Due to time constraints, the TC discussed and developed recommendations on several, but not
all, of these proposed new criteria. For criteria that the TC discussed, the discussion and
recommendations (where developed) are provided in shaded text. Please note that the proposed
new criteria without shaded text were not discussed by the TC, and no recommendations are
provided.
The TC was managed by Pamela Brody-Heine/Green Electronics Council and Patty
Dillon/Dillon Environmental Associates (both non-voting). TC members included the following:

















Marc Banks, Deutsche Bank
Sue Chiang, Center for Environmental Health
Holly Elwood, US EPA
John Jenne/Lucian Turk, Dell
Will Lintner, US DOE
Tim Mann, IBM
Michael Morimoto, GSA
Osamu Namikawa, Hitachi, Ltd.
Dmitriy Nikolayev, State of Massachusetts
Neil Peters-Michaud, Cascade Asset Management
Wayne Rifer, Green Electronics Council
Donna Sadowy, AMD
Steve Scherrer, Chemtura and Bromine Science and Environmental Forum
Michael Thurston, Rochester Institute of Technology
Roger Tipley/HP
Henry Wong, Intel
Chris Page, Yahoo! Inc.
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Table of Contents
4.1 Environmentally Sensitive Materials .................................................................................................. 2
1) Required - Identification of rare earth magnet composition on magnet surface and/or disk drive ....... 2
2) Required – Identification of phosphor composition on computer display regulatory rating label ....... 3
3) Optional – Comprehensive chemical inventory of chemicals .............................................................. 3
4) Optional – Greener chemicals and processes information.................................................................... 4
5) Optional – Alternative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 4
6) Optional - Making Chemical Selection or Change in Product Design Based on Chemical Hazard
Assessment Results ................................................................................................................................... 5
7) Required - Chemical Substitution Alternative Assessment .................................................................. 6
8) Optional—Reduce fluorinated greenhouse gas/N2O emissions resulting from semiconductor
manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 6
9) Optional—Reduction of carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and persistent, bioaccumulative, and
toxic (PBT) substances ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.3 Design for End of Life........................................................................................................................... 8
10) Optional – Local Recycling by Certified Recycler ............................................................................. 8
11) Optional – Public Availability of Repair Manuals ............................................................................. 9
4.5 Energy Conservation ............................................................................................................................ 9
12) Required – Air cooled servers operable at high temperatures ............................................................ 9
13) Required – IT equipment power supply efficiency .......................................................................... 10
14) Optional - IT equipment power supply efficiency ............................................................................ 11
15) Optional - On Board Cooling ........................................................................................................... 12
16) Required – Utilization of server rack power supply ......................................................................... 13
4.7 Corporate Performance...................................................................................................................... 13
17) Optional – Advancements in Corporate Performance ...................................................................... 13
4.8 Packaging ............................................................................................................................................. 13
18) Optional - Elimination of halogen-containing polymers in packaging ............................................. 13
19) Other Packaging criteria to consider................................................................................................. 14
Page 1
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
4.1 Environmentally Sensitive Materials
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
1) Required - Identification of rare earth magnet composition on magnet surface and/or
disk drive
Product Criterion: The manufacturer shall declare each rare earth magnet’s elemental composition, by
percent weight of each element, and the elemental/polymer/other composition of any coatings, or the
word “uncoated” if there are none on the magnet surface and/or the disk drive label. In the case of
bonded magnets, the manufacturer shall also declare the polymer constituents by percent weight of each.
Composition identifications must be human-readable, and must also include a bar code or other machinereadable format, linked to an internet database containing the required information.
Applies to: All covered products containing hard disk drives.
Verification Requirements:
a) Human readable and bar code marking on the hard disk drive containing rare earth magnet
composition by percent weight of each element and if coated, the elemental/polymer/other
composition of any coatings. Note that labels would not affect magnet performance, but etchings
might if they create stray magnetic fields that affect other nearby electronics (R. Shull, personal
communication).
b) Human readable and bar code marking on the hard disk drive containing the polymer constituents
by percent weight of each for bonded magnets.
c) Website where barcode data is accessible by recyclers.
References and Details: None
Source: EPA’s Critical Materials Team
Rationale: These proposals to enhance recovery, reuse, and recycling of rare earth magnets and
phosphors from hard disk drives are in-line with the goals for IEEE 1680 family of standards attribute
development. As stated in the 1680 Standards Development Principles document:1
“EPEAT should promote and reward the selection of materials so they maintain value throughout their
lifecycle and material choices should reflect the goal of minimizing material quantity, toxicity and impact
on the environment. Products should be designed for feasible material recovery and material reuse and to
significantly and sustainably increase the use of recycled materials.”
Addressing rare earth magnets and phosphors in the server standard would also help meet one of the goals
of the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship issued by the White House’s Council on
Environmental Quality, EPA and GSA in July 2011: “Promote scientific research and technological
developments that improve our ability to recover and market valuable materials from used electronics,
especially precious metals and rare earth elements
(www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/). Ultimately, this is an issue of natural
resource use and sustainability. By including criteria that make information on critical materials content
available to recyclers, we will increase the recyclability of critical materials worldwide and incentivize
and stimulate research into recovery technologies.
1
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1680/EASC/Policies/1680%20Stds%20Development%20Principles%20Approved%
20Oct%202009.pdf
Page 2
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
The challenge is to ensure that natural capital is not lost, that we move away from the traditional linear
economy mindset in which natural capital is used and discarded, and that current and future
production/consumption activities be undertaken in a manner that is sustainable. Although infinitely
recyclable, metal and mineral commodities are nonrenewable resources, therefore their total availability,
while not readily definable, is finite. In this context, mechanisms that promote recovery and recycling of
these materials can increase long-term sustainability. Voluntary, consensus-based environmental
performance standards and EPEAT can be one of the mechanisms that help move us in this direction.
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
2) Required – Identification of phosphor composition on computer display regulatory
rating label
Product Criterion: The manufacturer shall declare the elemental composition of phosphors used in each
lighting component, by percent weight of each element, on the lighting component. Phosphor
composition information must be human-readable, and must also include a bar code or other machinereadable format, linked to an internet database containing the required information.
Applies to: All covered products containing lighting components.
Verification Requirements:
a)
Human readable and bar code format phosphor composition information on the lighting
component
a)
Website where bar code data is available for recyclers.
References and Details: None
Source: EPA
Rationale: See above. Note that this criterion may not be applicable for servers – need OEM input on
this.
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
3) Optional – Comprehensive chemical inventory of chemicals
Product Criterion: Manufacturer has documented all chemical constituents used in the manufacturing
process and/or intentionally added or otherwise known or anticipated to be present at 100 ppm (0.01%
w/w) or greater in a formulated product; with the exception that there is no inventory limit on chemical
constituents present, including impurities and byproducts, which have been determined to be health
hazards if there is evidence that the constituent(s) could be released from a product or released from use
of a product in concentrations which could present a health risk to building occupants, as well as
employees.
Applies to: All covered products
Verification Requirements:
a)
Declaration by manufacturer
b) Documentation of a Conformance Assurance System which demonstrates conformity to this criterion
through effective control of the supply chain
Source: EPA Wiki on Chemical Criteria for Standards
Page 3
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Rationale: Manufacturers need to know all the chemicals used in the manufacturing process and residing
in the product they are manufacturing in order to make the best design decisions for not only performance
of the product but public health and the environment. This criterion is proposed as a way to incentivize
manufacturers to do this work.
TC Discussion







Entry point to other proposed new criteria (#3 – #8).
Challenges include intellectual property/proprietary information. Manufacturers unlikely to
divulge details of specific chemicals (e.g., “epoxy” but not specific epoxy formulation).
Concerned that proposal includes manufacturing chemicals; OEMs do not necessarily have
expertise to effectively evaluating this information.
Getting into manufacturing process goes beyond what is necessary for manufacturer of products.
Should focus on what’s in product.
Need to balance concerns about proprietary information and availability of info on chemicals.
Suppliers have a couple of tiers above them. Huge undertaking.
This is a trend, and one company, Seagate, is already doing this.
Note that the TC did not have time to complete this discussion (in particular the discussion on Seagate).
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
4) Optional – Greener chemicals and processes information
Product Criterion: Manufacturer has required NSF/GCI/ANSI 355-2011 reports of their chemical
suppliers for [some percentage of] chemical constituents intentionally added.
Applies to: All covered products
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by manufacturer
b) Documentation of information received from suppliers of chemicals.
Rationale: Once Manufacturers know all the chemicals residing in their products and used in their
manufacturing processes, they then need information about the characteristics of those chemicals which
can help them to begin to determine chemicals for which they may want to conduct alternative
assessments. This criterion is designed to incentivize manufacturers to collect the information needed to
begin to hone in on chemicals of high priority and to harness a recently finalized standard that brings
clarity on what we need to know about chemicals in order to begin determining where to focus attention.
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
5) Optional – Alternative Assessment
Product Criterion: Manufacturers shall perform a comprehensive alternative assessment for the
substitution of one or more of the substances restricted elsewhere in this standard and make this
assessment publicly available via the Substitution Support Portal (SUBSPORT). Based upon the
assessment results, the manufacturer shall either make an appropriate substitution of the substance or
eliminate the need for the function provided by the substance (i.e. utilization of metal enclosures rather
than flame retardants in plastics) while still meeting technical specifications for the product. Because
international standards do not yet exist in this area, assessment methodology is at the discretion of the
Page 4
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
manufacturer, but shall involve a comparative analysis of the chemical and its alternatives using the
comprehensive set of hazard endpoints in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Design for
the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Safer Ingredients or equivalent
methodologies (references – GreenScreen, (see other tools to consider mentioning here in attached
OECD document, etc.) The assessment may be performed by the manufacturer alone or as part of a
partnership or industry consortium. The assessment shall have been performed within three years prior to
product registration.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by the manufacturer; and
b) Documentation of the assessment including the methodology used, the date of completion of the
assessment, the substances evaluated, and the alternative substance used in the product or the technology
change made to eliminate the requirement for the function performed by the substance while still meeting
the technical specifications of the product.
c) In the case of an assessment done as part of a partnership or industry consortium, the other
participating parties shall be named.
Source: EPA proposed criterion November 2010
Rationale: Many stakeholders engaged in the development of 1680.2 and 1680.3 felt that there was a
strong need to ensure that these standards did not encourage moving from one known chemical of concern
to an equally bad or worse chemical in terms of impact on public health and the environment. This
criterion (with one sentence added by EPA) was the outcome of extensive discussion of this point.
Unfortunately it did not get the votes needed to remain in the standards due to concern that there were not
agreed alternative assessment tools in existence and concern over cost to conduct these assessments. This
is why the criterion is proposed as optional, and allows manufacturers to select from existing tools to
conduct alternative assessments. The EPA has added in the need to make the results of the alternatives
assessment publicly available on SUBSPORT, a new open source tool for alternative assessment results.
This has been added to encourage transparency and sharing of this critical information and work across
the supply chain.
Submitted by Sue Chiang/CEH
6) Optional - Making Chemical Selection or Change in Product Design Based on
Chemical Hazard Assessment Results
Placeholder language: Manufacturer shall identify a substance(s) of concern used in the product within
one year from the time the product is being registered, complete an assessment, and document a chemical
selection process made for this product related to that substance of concern which includes consideration
of the results of that assessment.
(The alternative does not need to be a chemical substitute but could involve a design change that
eliminates the need for the chemical).
Rationale: Chemical hazard assessments are essential to identifying a safer alternative – one that is less
hazardous to human health or the environment than the chemical of concern. Our goal is to avoid
replacing a known chemical of concern with an alternative that is determined to be of equivalent or
greater hazard.
Page 5
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Submitted by Steve Scherrer/Chemtura
7) Required - Chemical Substitution Alternative Assessment
Replacement chemicals must be evaluated through an alternatives assessment methodology and found to
be better or equal to the chemical they will replace in the same application. The alternative assessment
methodology applied could be at the discretion of the manufacturer but should involve a comparative
analysis of the chemicals of interest and it alternatives using the comprehensive set of hazard endpoints
such as those used by a government program such as the EPAs Design for the Environment. In addition,
the alternatives assessment should demonstrate that the technical specifications for the product can be
maintained or exceeded when the new chemical is used.
Rationale: Present suggested criteria do not demonstrate environmental benefits results when one
chemical is substituted with another chemical. Present suggested criteria can result in substitutions that
will negatively impact the environment.
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
8) Optional—Reduce fluorinated greenhouse gas/N2O emissions resulting from
semiconductor manufacturing
Product Criterion: The manufacturer shall declare that the supplier of semiconductors used in products
covered by this criterion has met a threshold of [X amount] of kg CO2e emissions per Manufactured
Layer Area (MLA) each year.2,3,4 This declaration shall be supported with a letter provided by the
semiconductor supplier. Examples of fluorinated greenhouse gasses (F-GHGs) include, but are not limited
to, CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, C4F8O, CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, and SF6.
The letter shall assure the following:

That the supplier has developed a GHG inventory of F-GHG and N2O emissions (including
fluorinated heat transfer fluids), expressed in tons of CO2e using the 2006 IPCC Tier 2a, 2b or
Tier 3 methodology or subpart I of EPA’s GHG Reporting Rule. }

That after the normalization factor is applied, the F-GHG/N2O emissions (expressed in kg CO2e
per manufactured layer area), meet the minimum threshold of XX of CO2e emissions.

That a description of how the supplier reduced its F-GHG/N2O emissions is provided. For
example, if the supplier reduced its emissions by installing F-GHG/N2O abatement, it would
describe which type of abatement systems were installed, the gases being abated, and the
percentage of emissions covered. Where the supplier’s emissions reductions resulted from the use
of alternative gases, process optimization, and/or recovery and/or recycling, the use and impact of
those strategies should be explained.
2
Manufactured Layer Area includes both the silicon wafer and the metal interconnects used in IC fabrication, and is derived by
multiplying the silicon wafer area by the total number of layers. MLA is introduced to account for the fact that emissions per unit
of silicon depends on the complexity (number of layers) of the chip being manufactured. Specifically, production using smaller
linewidth technologies (many layers) will result in higher emissions per unit area than production at larger linewidth technologies
(fewer layers). For more details, see references 2 and 3.
3 Burton, C. S. and R. Beizaie. “EPA’s PFC Emissions Model (PEVM) v.2.14: Description and Documentation”, prepared for
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, November 2001.
Burton, C. S. and Bartos, S. “Projecting PFC Emissions Using EPA’s PEVM”, presented at ISESH 2002, San Diego, CA. June
10-12, 2002.
4
Page 6
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Manufacturers shall declare "Not Applicable" for this criterion on the registry for products that do not
contain a semiconductor manufactured with F-GHGs/N2O.
Applies to: All covered products
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration from manufacturer
b) Supplier letter which includes assurance information.
Rationale: EPA understands that products covered by the 1680.1 and server standard include
semiconductor devices, which use fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) and N2O in the manufacturing
process. As a result, EPA is proposing that F-GHG/N2O emissions reductions in semiconductor
manufacturing be incorporated into the revision of the standard. EPA recommends leveraging the FGHG/N2O optional criterion language that was recently approved for the Televisions standard as a
starting point in this standard revision. Other EPEAT standards have addressed F-GHGs used in the
manufacture of flat panel displays, but emissions from the manufacturing of semiconductor devices
incorporated in electronic devices was not taken into account. Standard would be based on the World
Semiconductor Council (WSC) voluntary emissions reduction goal agreed to in 2011 (“implementation of
state of the art practices at new semiconductor fabrication facilities…. is expected to result in a 30% NER
reduction by 2020”), but would more appropriately account for the complexity of semiconductor devices
by using a normalized emission rate (NER) based on the number of manufactured layer (as opposed to the
current NER definition, which is based on emissions per square meter of silicon). Initial proposal would
include the general concept: supplier would have to meet a minimum threshold expressed in kg. CO2e per
manufactured layer area. In addition, the manufacturer would have to certify that the supplier has
developed a GHG inventory using one of the IPCC methods or subpart I and also include a description of
how the supplier has reduced its emissions.
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
9) Optional—Reduction of carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances (This criterion below is a possible alternative to the
3.1.4.1 REACH criterion.)
Product Criterion: A product shall not contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances above 0.1% weight by weight that are listed in Annex __
Chemicals of Concern.
External attachments and associated accessories that ship with the product being registered shall also not
contain the above-noted chemicals above 0.1% weight by weight of the individual attachment or
accessory.
Applies to: All covered products
Verification Requirements:
a)
Declaration from manufacturer
b)
Documentation of a conformance assurance system which demonstrates conformity to this
criterion through effective control of the supply chain
References and Details: Annex __ Chemicals of Concern list is from the BIFMA e3-2008 Furniture
Sustainability Standard Annex B (pending permission). The list was compiled by merging selected
chemicals from the following existing, authoritative lists:
Carcinogens
Page 7
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria

Listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as:
o Group 1: carcinogenic to humans
o Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans
 Listed by the National Toxicology Program as:
o Known human carcinogen
o Reasonably anticipated human carcinogen
 Meet the criteria under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS)
for the Carcinogenicity hazard class (codes H350, H351).
Reproductive Toxicants
 Listed under the State of California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65)
for reproductive or developmental toxicity.
 Meet the criteria under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS)
for the Reproductive Toxicity hazard class (codes H360, H361, H362).
PBT Substances
 Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants
 U.S. – Canada Binational Toxics
 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PBT chemicals
 RCRA Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals
Rationale: This is just one approach for modifying 3.1.4.1 and is a pretty straightforward extrapolation
from the current proposed requirements. These hazard endpoints are the ones noted for the chemicals on
the current SVHC candidate list. Other hazard endpoints of high concern could be added, such as the
GHS hazard classes for respiratory sensitization and germ cell mutagenicity. PBTs could also be handled
differently in this or a separate credit. For example, manufacturers could get points for running all
applicable chemicals through the PBT Profiler and demonstrating that all or some specified fraction of the
chemicals “pass,” (however you define “pass” in the screening). The NSF textile standard awards points
if a manufacturer uses the PBT Profiler to demonstrate that no chemical is rated as “medium” or above for
all three endpoints, or “high” for two endpoints.
4.3 Design for End of Life
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
10) Optional – Local Recycling by Certified Recycler
Product Criterion: Manufacturer shall demonstrate that recycling of product taken back is taking place
in the country where the product is returned.
Applies to: All covered products
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by a manufacturer
b) ?
Rationale: To reduce impacts of global transport while still gaining the environmental benefits of
recycling.
Page 8
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
11) Optional – Public Availability of Repair Manuals
Product Criterion: To facilitate reuse and refurbishment, the manufacturer shall publish the product’s
repair manual on the company’s website, without copyright restrictions, within one year of the product
release date.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by manufacturer
b) URL where the manual is publicly available
Source: Comments received on 1680.2/.3
4.5 Energy Conservation
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
12) Required – Air cooled servers operable at high temperatures
Product Criterion: The server shall have allowable equipment environmental ranges as specified within
the latest ASHRAE TC9.9 Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Equipment, Class A4 servers.
Applies to: All covered volume server products being specified for data centers where the following
applies:
a) The data center can operate to deliver air for cooling within the appropriate ASHRAE allowable
environmental conditions to the inlet of the servers.
b) All IT equipment in the data center can operate within Class A4 environmental conditions or
zoning for different environmental conditions can be achieved.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by manufacturer
b) Manufacturer shall provide a warranty for the equipment to operate in ASHRAE Class A4
allowable conditions. The warranty shall specify the number of continuous hours that the server
is capable of operating at the extremes of the allowable range.
References and Details: ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines Book, latest edition
Rationale: Servers that can operate in hotter environments will reduce energy and CO2 emissions
required for air conditioning provided that free cooling is provided and/or reduced compressor based
cooling is utilized. Server fan energy may increase at elevated temperatures but energy savings through
use of free cooling or reduced compressor based cooling will more than offset such increases. ASHRAE
guidance was developed in collaboration with all major IT equipment suppliers, and provides quantifiable
information on reliability when operating in these ranges. Purchases of servers capable of operating in
class A3 or A4 will not solve the power density, air flow or cooling problems of existing data centers
since existing data centers are populated with older technology servers, assuming a five year equipment
life cycle.
Page 9
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
TC Discussion:





From a server perspective it increases energy usage since it kicks up fan usage. From a data
center perspective, it is unclear if it is more energy efficient or just allows a cheaper build for data
center.
DOE has data that suggests great data center energy efficiency.
Yahoo latest data center – makes huge difference to widen envelope; doesn’t think fan energy
increases overall data center energy efficiency.
Green Grid doing work on this.
Dell in support but as written there is additional costs; would like to see optional and with
revisions.
TC Recommendation:
Move to WG with more information needed.


15 In support
1 Not in support
Some information needs: mortality rate at higher temperatures.
Sources of information: Green Grid, IBM
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
13) Required – IT equipment power supply efficiency
Product Criterion: Provide IT equipment with power supplies rated “80 Plus Gold” through the 80 Plus
Program, rack level power supplies with similar efficiency, or provide power supplies designed to
operate using 380V. DC current provided the data center infrastructure is designed to accommodate
380V. DC.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Power supply listed on the 80 Plus website:
http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/80PlusPowerSupplies.aspx
Or
b) If rack level power supplies, manufacturer validate equivalent 80 plus gold performance
Or
c) Manufacturers validate that 380V. DC power supplies are provided
References and Details: The 80 Plus program was developed to incentivize the adoption of high
efficiency power supplies for use in IT equipment. This program provides an incentive to the IT
equipment manufacture to produce products with highly efficient power supplies. Within 80 plus, there
are several levels of efficiency with all categories requiring certain efficiency (all greater than 80%)
throughout the power supplies operating load range. The 80 plus gold performance range is required for
this specification.
For data center power distribution systems designed to deliver electricity at 380 Volt direct current (DC)
several power conversion steps are eliminated resulting in power distribution energy savings as well as
Page 10
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
HVAC savings. For systems designed in this way, IT equipment operates with power supplies directly
fed with 380V. DC. The IT equipment is essentially the same as AC versions, except they would contain
power supplies that accept 380V. DC. Energy savings are obtained by reducing losses through the power
distribution chain and in the IT equipment power supply. Further HVAC savings are accrued due to those
reductions.
Rationale: Efficient power supplies have a magnifying effect on energy savings. Every watt saved at the
IT equipment saves additional energy by reducing the infrastructure loads. If servers were able to run on
DC power, they would eliminate the loss of energy from multiple electrical energy transformations. More
efficient power supplies result in less overall energy usage, and less CO2 emissions.
TC Discussion: see next criterion for discussion and recommendations
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
14) Optional - IT equipment power supply efficiency
Product Criterion: Provide IT equipment with power supplies rated “80 Plus Titanium” through the 80
Plus Program.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Power supply listed on the 80 Plus website:
http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/80PlusPowerSupplies.aspx
References and Details: The 80 Plus program was developed to incentivize the adoption of high
efficiency power supplies for use in IT equipment. This program provides an incentive to the IT
equipment manufacture to produce products with highly efficient power supplies. Within 80 plus, there
are several levels of efficiency with all categories requiring certain efficiency (all greater than 80%)
throughout the power supplies operating load range. The 80 plus gold performance range is required for
this specification.
Rationale: Efficient power supplies have a magnifying effect on energy savings. Every watt saved at the
IT equipment saves additional energy by reducing the infrastructure loads. If servers were able to run on
DC power, they would eliminate the loss of energy from multiple electrical energy transformations. More
efficient power supplies result in less overall energy usage, and less CO2 emissions.
TC Discussion:







Criteria skipped platinum, which is much more realistic for industry. Titanium is too aggressive at
this time & technology is not available. May conflict with other efforts within industry such as
“right size power supply.”
Regional variations may need to be considered.
Doesn’t cover DC power supplies.
Beyond platinum may be at a reduced efficiency.
Request to reference ITU standard.
Quick look at website: 114 meet platinum; 146 meet gold.
Is 80 Plus Gold is required in ES v.2.0? ES v.2: multi-output is at silver, not gold.
TC Recommendations:
Polls
Page 11
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Agreement that standard should harmonize with ES. If not included in ES, then
1) Move forward optional “80 Plus titanium” criterion but revised to platinum


14 In support/can live with
1 Not in support
2) Move forward optional “80 Plus titanium” criterion as is (as additional criterion)


14 In support/can live with
2 Not in support
Info needs: look at conflict with other energy efficiency techniques (e.g., right size power supply)
3) Move forward optional “80 Plus gold” criterion but revised for multi-output only



15 In support/can live with
0 Not in support
1 Not enough information
4) Move forward low voltage (LVDC) & more information is needed



11 In support/can live with
0 Not in support
4 More information needed
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
15) Optional - On Board Cooling
Product Criterion: The IT equipment shall include cooling provided close to the heat source, if cooling
is needed.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration from manufacturer
References and Details: ASHRAE Liquid Cooling Thermal Guidelines:
http://tc99.ashraetcs.org/documents/ASHRAE%202011%20Liquid%20Cooling%20Whitepaper.pdf
Rationale: Servers which provide heat removal close to the major heat sources (e.g. processors) are able
to be kept at the appropriate temperature to run effectively with reduced energy use for the cooling
systems. This results in less energy usage, and less CO2 emissions. Various technologies including
conduction based designs, heat pipes, water or refrigerant cooling can provide effective cooling and
eliminate server fans.
TC Discussion:



Criterion dictates implementation, more than providing energy efficiency target. Don’t
specify how to cool the chips. Suggest rewriting to establish energy efficiency requirement.
Is the goal to have a criterion for on board cooling?
Does this criterion fall outside of the product standard?
TC Recommendation: Unanimous - Criterion needs to be further developed by author before forwarding
to WG.
Page 12
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
16) Required – Utilization of server rack power supply
Product Criterion: Product can utilize a shared server rack power supply, in addition to dedicated server
power supply.
Applies to: All covered products.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration from manufacturer
References and Details: None.
Rationale: For a given redundancy level, integrated rack mounted power supplies will operate at a higher
load factor (potentially 70%) compared to individual server power supplies (20% to 25%).
TC Discussion:




As written is this a product-specific criterion?
Is this about how to reduce redundancy in order to increase load level?
Needs to be clarified.
Issues: are we discussing internal voltage rail distribution or redundant load of power supplies?
TC Recommendation: Unanimous - Criterion needs to be further developed by author before forwarding
to WG.
4.7 Corporate Performance
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
17) Optional – Advancements in Corporate Performance
Product Criterion: Achieve a 10% or greater reduction in one or more of the above key environmental
aspects year over year.
Applies to: all covered products
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration by manufacturer
Rationale: Provide incentive for achieving objectives laid out in corporate performance reports.
Source: EPA’s ORCR
4.8 Packaging
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
18) Optional - Elimination of halogen-containing polymers in packaging
Page 13
Server Technical Committee - Proposed New Criteria
Product Criterion: Manufacturer shall state in the manufacturer's environmental packaging requirement
that all plastics, with the exception of tapes, labels, and plastic parts weighing less than 25 grams, used for
product packaging shall not use halogen-containing polymers (for example, PVC).
Applies to: Packaging of products that are declared to conform to this Standard.
Verification Requirements:
a) Declaration from manufacturer
b) Copy of manufacturer's environmental packaging requirement
Source: original language negotiated in Packaging workgroup, but changed in later interactions. EPA
comments to 1680.2/.3
Submitted by Holly Elwood/EPA
19) Other Packaging criteria to consider











Add product to packaging ratio/ density (NOTE: dematerialization criteria; difficult to
benchmark;)
Substitute lighter materials to reduce weight during transportation
Substitute lower embodied energy materials to reduce energy consumption throughout the
lifecycle
Source materials that are extracted, manufactured, transported and recycled using renewable
energy
Reusable transport packaging
Education / labeling (e.g. Identify the method for reuse, composting, or recycling)
Eliminate the use of free flowing cushioning agents – packaging peanuts
Lightweight to minimize resource use and transportation emissions
FSC certification for fibers
Vegetable based inks
Specifications for non-BPA
Page 14