The EPEAT draft environmental criteria and the procedures for validation represent the results of an 18 month-long multi-stakeholder process. The EPEAT Development Team was composed of representatives of the following stakeholder groups:

• Public & Private Institutional Purchasers
• Manufacturers
• Trade Associations
• Non-Profit and Advocacy Organizations
• Government
• Electronic Recyclers
• Academics

The process for developing the draft criteria included use of ANSI essential requirements , including the need for openness, balance, consideration of all views, and consensus decision-making.

Each criterion was evaluated alongside the others to ensure that EPEAT is a balanced and comprehensive tool that covers multiple environmental attributes throughout the product’s life cycle. The criteria are stringent enough to promote better environmental design, manufacture, and end-of-life management, while reflecting existing technologies and technical limitations so that a sufficient supply of EPEAT-qualified products will be available to purchasers. Specific criteria are drawn heavily from existing U.S. and international requirements and standards such as Energy Star® , the European Union’s Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive, and the IT-Eco Declaration.. The EPEAT Development Team chose to build on existing legal and market requirements to reduce overlap and possibly conflicting requirements on product producers. Because this tool is intended first for the use of federal government purchasers, the development team also checked criteria against existing federal procurement requirements, to ensure that the tool would be useable in this setting.

A description of the development of EPEAT was published in the IAITAM PROCESS MANAGEMENT magazine. Click here for a copy (PDF 2.62MB) An in-depth report on the development phase process and results is also available. Click here for a copy (PDF 1.79MB)

The resulting set of environmental attributes and criteria was accepted by unanimous agreement. One letter of dissention was received requesting more stringent requirements regarding prison labor and the export of electronic waste. For a copy of the letter, click here (PDF 60K).

During its deliberations, the Development Team found the EPA "Plug into eCycling" Guidelines to be a valuable addition to the other criteria. The team had concerns, however, that the Guidelines were not clear enough regarding export of nonworking equipment or materials to countries outside the United States – particularly to countries that are signatories to the Basel Convention. A letter on behalf of the Development Team was prepared and submitted to the EPA "Plug into eCycling" program to request clarification. For a copy of the letter, click here (PDF 204K). A response letter was received that lists the 165 parties to the Basel Convention and notes that the US is a signatory, but has not ratified the Convention. It also lists the 31 OECD countries and indicates clarifying guidance for transboundary shipments is currently being prepared. For a copy of the letter, click here (PDF 1.1M).

The development team met five times between November 2003 and November 2004 and participated in over a hundred conference calls as a whole and in various subcommittees to develop the draft criteria and supporting system.  The subcommittees included those dealing with the tool structure, the individual criteria, and the selection of the Host Organization for the tool, as well as ad hoc subgroups convened to discuss particularly complex or challenging issues. To the greatest extent possible, all subgroups retained a balance between the different stakeholder constituencies.

Meeting Information:

• Workshop - June 2003 - Chandler AZ
• Meeting 2 - January 2004, Austin TX
• Meeting 3 - April  2004, Chicago, IL
• Meeting 4 – July 2004 Portland, OR
• Meeting 5 – November 2004, Washington, DC
• Member List

The Development Team has completed its work, and a smaller Implementation Team is now working to implement EPEAT. A central question is what organization will host the EPEAT tool. A public comment period will be held on the draft criteria. This work is being done through several c ommittees:

• Host Organization Selection
• Budget and Resources
• Criteria
• Communications
• Web Application

The Implementation Team will meet three times during 2005 with the target to have its work finished and the EPEAT system formally launched in January 2006.

Top

National Workshop

Intel Ocotillo Campus (Building OC2)
4500 S Dobson Road, Chandler AZ 86584
Tuesday, June 17th, 2003

Overview

A kick-off workshop for the EPEAT Project was held on June 17th, 2003 at the Intel’s Ocotillo Facility in Chandler, Arizona. The workshop will provided attendees the opportunity to be actively involved and to help set the course for a new vision for the end-of-life of electronic products.  

 Speakers discussed the current vision of the EPEAT project, procurement perspectives, and the e-recycling industry today and where the present trends are taking it.  This lead to a discussion of provocative questions concerning the nexus of end-of-life management and the elements of environmental design.  Breakout groups will discussed the attributes of products designed for end-of-life management and the characteristics of a useful and practical assessment tool.

 The agenda for the workshop and the materials presented are shown below.

Agenda and Presentations

Additional Materials

Workshop Summary:

• Final Post Meeting Summary
  (EPEAT_Workshop_Summary_3-0.doc)

Handouts:

• EPEAT One Pager
  (EPEAT_Onepager_030611.pdf)
• Code of Conduct 
  (Code_of_Conduct.doc) 
• Questions for the Discussion Groups
  (Questions_for_Groups.doc)
• Overview of DfE Assessment Standards from the WEPSI Market Drivers Subgroup (Overview_of_DfE_Assmt_Stds.doc) 
• Model DfE Assessment Tools  from the WEPSI Market Drivers Subgroup (Model_DfE_Assessment_Tools.doc) 
• “Green” Procurement of Electronic  Equipment (Electronic Industries Association) (green_procurementmay2003.doc) 
• Electronic Product Environmental Labels  (Electronic Industries Association)
  (ecolabelsmay2003.doc) 
• Workshop Attendee List
  (Workshop_Attendees.pdf) 

Workshop Facilitator:

• Adam Saslow, Neutral Workshop Facilitator, Consensus Solutions, asaslow@c-solutions.org, 404/531-9940

Top

Development Team Meeting Notes

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETING #1
Fairfax Virginia – November 4-5, 2003

   The EPEAT Development Team convened its first face-to-face meeting in Fairfax, VA, in the offices of ICF Consulting. Twenty-six DT members and six Support Team members/observers participated over the two days. The major issues and themes discussed over the two days included:

• Project parameters and procedures, including Development Team membership and  process.
• EPEAT mission statement.
• The results and expectations of the EPEAT process and product.
• Desired characteristics of an Assessment Tool.
• An exercise to balance characteristics of an Assessment Tool.
• Desired attributes of electronic products, or desired criteria to be used by the Assessment Tool to evaluate products.
• An exercise for stakeholder groups to identify what qualities they most want in  an Assessment Tool.
• Identification of members for and expectations of EPEAT subcommittees.

Team members expressed the following hopes for the EPEAT process and tool:

• A creative process, but not one that ‘reinvents the wheel.’
• A tool that is easy to use, simple and practical.
• Flexibility.
• Ability to track continuous improvement
• Scientific validity
• Lets do it once right so it becomes the de facto standard.
• Tool should address a wide range of environmental issues, toxics elimination, etc.
• It  should be consistent and strong.

 The DT decided on the following action items as a result of the meeting:

1. Rewrite mission statement
2. Choose date and location for next meeting     
3. Communicate meeting results to missing people       
4. Create confidentiality/Do Not Distribute  language for docs    
5. Meeting notes finished                        
6. Send travel support needs to Larry         
7. Convene EPEAT Structure Subcommittee             
8. Convene EPEAT Attributes Subcommittee             
9. New member suggestions to Larry     
10. Determine if more Factor-X information is  available
11. Update chart of other systems     
12. Web site update

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETING #2
Austin, TX, January 27-29, 2004

The EPEAT Development Team convened its second face-to-face meeting in Austin, TX, in the offices of Dell Computer. Twenty-eight DT members and five Support Team members/observers participated over the two days. The major issues and themes discussed over the two days included:

• A review of and preliminary decision regarding the structure of EPEAT based on the work of the Structure Team
• A review of potential EPEAT attributes and criteria based on the work of the Attributes Team
• Discussion and opinions regarding a rating or scoring system – assigned to Identification of the Financing/Host Organization Team

 The preliminary structure decided on is a system like LEED in which the applicant or manufacturer assesses their product based on EPEAT criteria, assigning points to determine an appropriate level (e.g., silver, gold, etc.). The applicant guarantees the accuracy of its information, providing assessment results and supporting data if requested. EPEAT maintains a review process to hear challenges to the claims by to the applicants’ self-certification.

 The DT decided on the following action items as a result of the meeting:

 1)      Action Steps for Structure Team                        Eric Friedman

• Revisions to Trial Balloon 2A
• Develop Scoring/Rating System

 2)      Action Steps for Attributes Team                     Sheila  Davis

• Complete list of Attributes        
• Prioritize Attributes and Categories (including identification of what other systems take care of)
• Propose levels of criteria or attributes consistent with proposed structure
• Create trial balloons based on options for scoring systems

 3)      Choose date and location for next meeting         Support Team

• Roman Chicago, IL at United Recycling, April 27, 28, 2004                                    

4)     Convene EPEAT Host Org./Funding Team         Holly Evans

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETING #3
United Recycling, West Chicago IL, April 27-28, 2004
Decisions and Recommendations

Attributes Recommendations

• The 8 Categories and their associated Attributes were generally approved by the EPEAT Development Team.
• The revised and edited Principles* were approved by the EPEAT Development Team.
• Recycling services/end-of-life management offerings by manufacturers was generally approved as an Attribute by the EPEAT Development Team.
• The EPEAT Development Team recommended not to include Supply Chain Management as a Category or Attribute at this time.
• The EPEAT Development Team recommended not to include Socially-Responsible Recycling as a Category or Attribute at this time.

Structure Decisions

• The EPEAT Development Team approved the Application Process.
• The EPEAT Development Team approved the Verification Process pending completion of the Attributes Committee work.
• The EPEAT Development Team approved the Scoring Process models that were recommended by the committee* pending completion of the Attributes Committee work.
• The EPEAT Development Team debated the work of the Structure Committee on labeling and decided to consider it at their July meeting.

 Mission Decisions

• The EPEAT Development Team decided to conduct an email vote after the meeting to decide on the appropriate language for including health considerations in the Mission statement.
• Decision to extend the EPEAT Development Team to a fifth face-to-face meeting in the Fall.

Development Team Meeting #3 Action Items

1)  Action Steps for Attributes Committee - Katz

• Continue to refine Attributes and Criteria for Decision in July

2)  Action Steps for Structure Committee - Friedman

• Continue to work on Labeling
• Work with Attributes Committee

3)  Action Steps for Organization Committee - Evans

• Complete Criteria and Process for Decision in July

4)  Choose date and location for next meeting, Portland, OR at Intel Site, July 28-30

Major Themes Discussed  

• EPEAT Overview –  review of the mission, timeline, and purpose of EPEAT
• EPEAT Attributes –  providing guidance and discussion regarding the EPEAT Attributes and  defining the next steps for the Attributes Subcommittee
• EPEAT Structure –  decisions and next steps based on the work of the Structure Subcommittee
• EPEAT Organization –  the criteria and process for selecting a host organization for EPEAT.

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETING #4
Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR, July 28-30, 2004
Decisions and Recommendations

Attributes Decisions:

1. The DT largely approved the Attributes recommendations with changes required, better definitions, and measurements on the criteria.
2. The DT asked for the Attributes Committee to revise their recommendations on flame retardants and other selected attributes and criteria.
3. The DT agreed to a timeline and a process for resolving issues and voting on the final set of Attributes, Categories, and Criteria (See below).

Scoring Decisions

1. The DT decided that 50% of the market meeting the EPEAT standard is a reasonable first or Bronze level.
2. The DT decided that EPEAT Bronze (or first) level would consist of only mandatory items, not optional ones.

Host Organization Decisions

• DT decided that EPEAT should issue the Request for Information (RFI) to potential host organizations in order to gather more information about host organization structure, budget, function, relationship to DT and other issue (See RFI document).
• Holly, Lynn and Viccy will be the response team for the RFI. Viccy will set up an e-mail address to receive comments and send out to Holly and Lynn

Special Issues Decisions

• EOL, Corporate Responsibility and Attributes/Criteria: Are attributes and criteria not physically attached to a particular product part of EPEAT?  Result:  YES 17  NO 4
• Vote: Are corporate requirements treated differently than the product specific requirements?  This can maintain the gradations in the point system?  Result:  YES 16  NO 5
  (The corporate requirements or non-product specific ones may best be expressed as part of the MOU/mandatory requirements)
• Prison Labor/Worker Safety and Health: Should EPEAT include a specific ban on prison labor?  Result:  YES 5   NO 13  Abstain 3
• Should the DT consider developing criteria that includes Env. H&S, Action to protect own health, and adhere to all F, S and Local laws (Assuming it won’t preclude Govt. purchasing)?  Result:   YES  12  NO  9
  
  The decision of the development team means that specific criteria on ES&H will not be included in the Attributes, however, DT members are free to make timely, specific proposal on this and other topics. A subgroup of the DT can come forward with a proposal to the DT that 1) suggests changes or lacks in the Plug-in guidelines and 2) offer a specific other option for use.
• Export Issue: Should the DT accept the EOL 6.2 as it has been proposed by the Attributes Committee (EPA Plug-in ESM guidelines), specifically as it regards the export provisions? A no vote means that the sub-committee should take it back and consider a new proposal within the EPEAT timeline. Result: Yes 10  No 9
  (The Attributes Committee will take this back and will bring it to the DT at the September conference call.)

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEETING #5
US EPA Offices, Washington, DC, November 8-10, 2004
Decisions and Recommendations

Notes not yet available

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM FINAL REPORT
Not yet available

Top

EPEAT DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEMBERS

• Apple Computer - Dave Cassano
• California Integrated Waste Management Board - Terri Persons
• City of Seattle - David Matthews
• Dell Computer - Mark Schaffer
• Electronic Industries Alliance - Holly Evans
• GATX Inc. - Ronalda Meson
• Hewlett Packard - John Burkitt
• IBM - Tim Mann
• INFORM - Sarah O¹Brien
• Intel Corporation - Allen R. Wilson
• International Assn of Electronics Recyclers - Peter Muscanelli
• New Jersey Institute of Technology - Reggie Caudill
• Noranda Recycling Inc. - Steve Skurnac
• Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. - Lynn Rubinstein
• Panasonic Matsushita Electronics Corp. - David Thompson
• Pitney Bowes Corporation - Dave Gallaer
• Sharp Electronics Corp. - Frank Marella
• Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition - Sheila Davis
• State of Massachusetts - Eric Friedman
• State of Minnesota - Garth Hickle
• State of Oregon - Gayle Montgomery
• The Center for a New American Dream - Naomi Friedman
• Tufts University - Patricia Dillon
• U.S. Department of the Interior - James Weiner
• U.S. EPA - Oliver Voss
• U.S. EPA  - Viccy Salazar
• U.S. Government - John Howard
• United Recycling Industries, Inc. - Lauren Roman
• University of Tennessee - Maria Leet Socolof
• Waste Management - Bobby Farris
• Zero Waste Alliance - Larry Chalfan

Top

Implementation Team Meeting Notes

EPEAT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM MEETING #1
US EPA Offices, Washington, DC, March 3-4, 2005
Decisions and Recommendations

Implementation Team

1. The I-Team agreed on a process for decision making when full agreement cannot be reached.

Web Application Committee

1. Scheduled to have alpha application ready for final test by 9/30.
2. Screen mockups were reviewed. Further reviews planned with manufacturers and purchasers.
3. Software Requirements Specification and the project management plan have been prepared.

Criteria Committee

1. Final draft of the criteria document is ready and needs copyright notice.
2. DOI initial market survey - based on responses, confident that they can put EPEAT green requirements in their RFPs

Communications Committee

1. Information Dissemination documents, web site, primer, FAQ and presentation are nearly ready. Feedback on drafts was given.
2. Final versions will be posted to web site at appropriate time.

ANSI Process

1. Decision: An ANSI accredited standards development organization (SDO) will be selected to finalize the EPEAT criteria with the development team as the Technical committee (EPEAT Council) and there will be a strong bridge between the Host and the Council. The Council/Development team will select an organization to run the systems and verification. Yes=13, NO=0.

Budget Committee

1. Business model and funding plan were reviewed, revenue sources discussed.

Host Organization Selection Committee

1. Committee is developing an RFP for selection of the Host Organization.
2. Committee will begin selection process for the SDO.

EPEAT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM MEETING #2
Hewlett Packard, Houston, TX, January 10-12, 2006
Notes, Decisions and Recommendations

Web Application Committee

1. All application development milestones had been accomplished by September 30, 2005. The demonstration site was available at http://ripley.dnamerican.com/EPEAT/

Criteria Committee (ANSI Standard Development)

1. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers was chosen as the ANSI accredited standards development organization (SDO)
2. Invitations were sent to hundreds of people and a ballot group has been formed.
3. The draft IEEE 1680 standard has been prepared and initial ANSI process ballots have been done. One final recirculation ballot is expected and the final standard should be approved by the IEEE Review Committee and Standards Board by March 30, 2006. After April 30, 2006 the standard will be available from the IEEE at http://shop.ieee.org/ieeestore/. Enter 1680 in the search field.

Communications Committee

1. Information Dissemination documents, web site, primer, FAQ and presentation are nearly ready. Feedback on drafts was given.
2. Final versions will be posted to web site at appropriate time.

Budget Committee

1. The budget committee had finished their work and passed budget work to the Green Electronics Council, the selected EPEAT host organization.

Host Organization Selection Committee/Host Organization

1. Committee had completed the RFP process for selection of the Host Organization. The Green Electronics Council was chosen to be the EPEAT host.
2. Green Electronics Council personnel attended the meeting and presented their approach to make EPEAT a success including selection of a board of advisors, marketing and promotion, product verification plans and funding model.

Following all reports and discussion, the Implementation voted unanimously to turn further implementation of EPEAT over to the Green Electronics Council and disband as an organization. It was recognized that many or all of the members may be called upon to support questions concerning and upgrades to the EPEAT ANSI Standard.

Top

EPEAT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM MEMBERS

• Alcorn Consulting, Inc./MARCEE, Walter Alcorn
• Dell Computer - Mark Schaffer
• Electronic Industries Alliance - Rick Goss
• Hewlett Packard - John Burkitt
• Intel Corporation - Allen R. Wilson
• International Assn of Electronics Recyclers - Peter Muscanelli
• Kodiak Finance - Ronalda Meson
• Marriott International - Sharon Dorsey
• New Jersey Institute of Technology, Reggie Caudill
• Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. - Patty Dillon
• Rifer Environmental - Wayne Rifer
• State of Massachusetts - Eric Friedman
• State of Minnesota - Garth Hickle
• Strategic Counsel, LLC (AMD, Canon), Holly Evans
• U.S. EPA - Holly Elwood
• U.S. EPA - John Katz
• U.S. EPA - Kathy Osdaba
• U.S. EPA  - Viccy Salazar
• Zero Waste Alliance - Larry Chalfan