7/31/2019 Apple Return To EPEAT Background

1/2

Notes on EPEAT Verification Investigation 2012-05

EPEAT Verification Round 2012-05 tested five different "ultra-thin" notebook

computers for conformity with two criteria of the EPEAT PC registry requirements. The investigation was

prompted by concerns raised earlier this year in professional publications that speculated whether

certain ultra-thin notebooks might not meet several key environmental criteria of the EPEAT rating

system.

EPEAT has an established set of procedures to ensure the integrity of its registry for cases such as these.

In this case the process included:

A. Identification of the specific technical areas of concern. These were:a. Upgradeability of componentsb. Common availability of tools for disassemblyc. The ability to safely and easily remove key components as part of product disassembly

for recycling.

B. Clarification: EPEAT staff requested a "Clarification" (guidance produced through a formalreview of the standard) of ambiguities in the wording of the relevant IEEE 1680.1 criteria from

the Product Verification Committee (PVC) - the independent panel of experts that determines

product conformity in EPEAT.

On July 30, EPEAT received and published clarification #14 addressing the relevant criteria (see

http://www.epeat.net/verification-clarifications#clarification14). That Clarification resolved

several key issues for criterion 4.4.2.1, which requires that products be upgradeable, as follows:

Products containing externally accessible ports such as a high performance serial bus or

a USB are capable of being upgraded by adding a hard disk, DVD, floppy drive, memory

and cards, and therefore conform to this criterion.

A tool is deemed to be commonly available as long as it can be purchased by any

individual or business without restrictions and is readily available for purchase on the

open market. The tools may be purchasable at a local retail store, or by any individual or

business via a mail or web-based retailer. Tools that are proprietary or require licensing

or other agreements between the buyer and seller are not considered commonly

available.

However the PVC did not provide a final determination on the definition of the "ease and

safety" required by criteria 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.1.5 at end of life. They ruled these qualities must be

"demonstrated".

C. Surveillance: EPEAT staff conducted a broad surveillance investigation reviewing publicly-available technical material for registered products, to determine whether specific products and

criteria were at risk of nonconformance. This review of publicly available data for the universe of

smaller, lighter products on the registry determined that unibody construction appeared to

http://www.epeat.net/verification-clarifications#clarification14http://www.epeat.net/verification-clarifications#clarification14http://www.epeat.net/verification-clarifications#clarification14

7/31/2019 Apple Return To EPEAT Background

2/2