EPEAT today released the results of a verification process that tested five different “ultra-thin” notebooks to ascertain their conformance with the green rating system’s stringent requirements. These products had come under close scrutiny in public discussions this past summer. Products from Apple, Lenovo, Samsung and Toshiba were investigated in this verification process. All products investigated met the requirements of the criteria reviewed.
“EPEAT is committed to foster greener electronics and to give purchasers the tools to evaluate green claims,” said Robert Frisbee, CEO of EPEAT, in a statement. “The system’s rigorous environmental assessment processes result from a powerful stakeholder collaboration that includes purchasers, environmental advocates, government, manufacturer, recycler and academic participants. This latest series of stringent investigations demonstrates the power of that approach.”
The findings released today are the culmination of a lengthy review of a number of specific criteria – and of a broad array of notebook products registered in the EPEAT system. Specific areas of concern addressed included whether products could be upgraded, if tools were commonly available to accomplish upgrades, and whether materials of concern including batteries could be easily removed from ultrathin products.
To ensure the integrity of the registry, EPEAT undertook a number of fundamental inquiries. These included:
• a request for formal clarification of the standard requirements from the independent Product Verification Committee (PVC) – a group of experts on electronics and environmental issues who provide interpretation of conformity requirements and rule on verification findings
• a comprehensive review of publicly available technical information for notebook products in the EPEAT registry.
• an independent verification investigation for those products where public information did not resolve questions of potential nonconformance.
For the verification investigation, EPEAT contracted with a technical test lab to independently purchase these devices on the open market, and disassemble them according to the instructions provided.
Following their disassembly investigation, the test lab recommended that all the products be found to satisfy EPEAT requirements. After reviewing the data and recommendations provided by the lab, the PVC found all investigated products to be in conformance with EPEAT criteria, clearing the way for all the products investigated to remain on the EPEAT registry. Additional details of the investigation may be found below.
The information garnered through these investigations will help stakeholders currently engaged in updating the PC/Display standard to ensure that the criteria address the market direction and design innovations leading toward thinner, lighter products.
Clarification of Standard Requirements
The EPEAT PVC determined that, based on the clear wording of the relevant criteria, products could be considered upgradable if they contained an externally-accessible port through which additional capacity could be supplied to the registered product (or if they could be upgraded through physical replacement of parts).
The PVC also ruled that tools required for disassembly or upgrade of registered products are deemed ‘commonly available’ if they can be purchased by any individual or business on the open market, are not proprietary and do not require agreements between the buyer and seller.
The PVC declined to specify precise parameters for what constitutes “easy and safe” disassembly or removal of components, because they noted such terms could encompass different details depending on the specifics of the product class in question and must be demonstrated in action.
Comprehensive Review and Surveillance
EPEAT staff performed a detailed surveillance review of all small and light products registered in the system. This review identified specific types of ultrathin construction that seemed most likely to encounter issues meeting the criteria of concern. This eliminated the majority of products under review, and left five products from four manufacturers with significant unresolved questions relating to conformance.
Verification
Investigation of the remaining five products was conducted through a formal verification investigation. In keeping with EPEAT’s standard approach, manufacturers subject to investigation were not notified in advance, and investigation was based on product registrations prior to the verification notification. (For more about verification in EPEAT, see http://www.epeat.net/learn-more/verification/)
EPEAT requested standard disassembly instructions from each manufacturer for the products in question, then commissioned a technical test lab to independently purchase these devices on the open market, and disassemble them according to the instructions provided. Lab personnel were not trained recycling professionals, so they could be expected to provide more universally applicable data regarding questions of time and ease of disassembly than would a demonstration by a recycler.
The lab disassembled each of the purchased products with full documentation of each disassembly process, including its overall duration. Time for total disassembly of each of the products was under 20 minutes in all cases; for the removal of batteries the time required was between 30 seconds and 2 minutes. As noted above, these times probably exceed what a skilled recycler would require. Given their findings, the lab recommended that all products be found in conformance with EPEAT requirements.
Source: EPEAT
MacDailyNews Take: Apple wins again!
Related articles:
Upon return, Apple’s Retina MacBook Pro on EPEAT Gold status list – July 14, 2012
Apple: Effective immediately, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT – July 13, 2012
U.S. Federal government rethinking buying Apple computers over EPEAT withdrawal – July 12, 2012
Apple explains exit from government-backed EPEAT list – July 11, 2012
San Francisco to block Mac purchases citing lack of environmental EPEAT certification – July 10, 2012
Apple pulls products from U.S. gov’t-backed ‘EPEAT’ green electronics list – July 7, 2012
Why Apple’s sealed, non-user-serviceable MacBook Pro with Retina display is a very good thing – June 22, 2012
Teardown of MacBook Pro’s Retina display shows off ‘engineering marvel’ – June 19, 2012
Teardown of MacBook Pro with Retina Display reveals soldered RAM, glued-in battery – June 13, 2012
AnandTech reviews Apple MacBook Pro with Retina display: Editor’s Choice; first Mac to ever receive one – June 23, 2012
AP reviews Apple MacBook Pro with Retina display: An epiphany, makes all other screens look dull and fuzzy – June 16, 2012
Reg Hardware reviews Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display: Drool-worthy – June 15, 2012
USA Today reviews Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display: Powerfully robust, an object of desire – June 14, 2012
ABC News reviews Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display: If you have the money, this is the one to buy – June 14, 2012
Engadget reviews Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display: Redefines the professional notebook – June 13, 2012
PC Magazine reviews Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display: Editor’s choice – June 13, 2012
Apple debuts new TV ad for MacBook Pro with Retina display: ‘Every Dimension’ (with video) – June 13, 2012
AnandTech analyzes Apple’s new MacBook Pro Retina display: ‘Everything is ridiculously crisp’ – June 12, 2012
Hands-on with Apple’s new MacBook Pro with Retina display (with video) – June 12, 2012
Apple unveils all new MacBook Pro with stunning Retina display – June 11, 2012
“All products investigated met the requirements of the criteria reviewed.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple wins again!
Sounded like a tie to me.
Wasn’t a competition. Apple won the EPEAT Standards approval.
Apple’s non-standard battery solution was against the previous rules so Apple opted out of the EPEAT standards until EPEAT altered the rules.
Apple wins!
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
Calling Greenpeace! Hello?
(crickets)
Apple being in, then out, then in again of EPEAT was a bit farcical but better to have some form of sustainability regulation than none at all. We’ve all gotta live in the real world.