EPEAT CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS 4.4 Product longevity/life cycle extension

(1)

EPEAT CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

4.4 Product longevity/life cycle extension

4.4.1 Manufacturer warranty/service agreement

4.4.1.1 Required—Availability of additional three year warranty or service

agreement

Verification Guidance

This criterion will be verified for conformance in geographic regions or countries. Subscriber must demonstrate that the criterion is met in all declared regions/countries.

IEEE Interpretations and PVC Verification Clarifications

Interpretation 1-8

The term ‘additional’ in 4.4.1.1 means that regardless of the terms of a standard warranty, an additional warranty or service contract of at least three-years duration must be offered for purchase.

References and Details None available.

Verification Requirements 1. Declaration from manufacturer (see 4.0 Verification Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer) 2. Documentation of warranty or service contract

4.4.1.1 Verification Requirement

Documentation of warranty or service contract

Verification Protocols

1. Request for data submission to subscriber

1. Declaration from manufacturer that additional 3-year warranty is available in all declared to regions

AND

2. Documentation showing:

• The standard warranty/service contract with the product

• An additional 3 year warranty or service contract being offered to purchasers

(2)

offered to purchasers

2. Examples of potential evidence for conformance – generally more than one item of evidence may be provided such that conformance is adequately demonstrated

• Website

• Sample contracts

• Sample warranty/service contract

3. Questions to assess conformance Is there evidence that an additional 3 year warranty/service exists and is “in addition” to the standard offering?

Does the documentation show that the offer of an additional warranty is made visible and accessible to all purchasers? 4. Evaluation guidance Actual warranty/contract does not need to be provided,

however the details to prove the additional warranty/service does actually exist and how it is offered to purchasers is needed.

(3)

4.4.2 Upgradeability

4.4.2.1 Required—Upgradeable with common tools

Verification Guidance

At the time of this document, no interpretations or clarifications have been issued for this criterion.

References and Details Upgrading of product may be limited to designated service entities or manufacturer.

Verification Requirements 1. Declaration from manufacturer (See 4.0 Verification Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer)

2. Supporting documentation demonstrating that the product is upgradeable with commonly available tools. Examples of documentation include:

• A list of the commonly available tools required to upgrade product, and instructions for upgrading the product, or

• A statement from a minimum of three computer service, upgrade or refurbishment entities individually, or at least one computer service, upgrade or

refurbishment entity working under an independent entity with electronics upgrade expertise that is not a trade organization, confirming that the product design meets requirements of 4.4.2.1

4.4.2.1 Verification Requirement

Supporting documentation demonstrating that the product is upgradeable with commonly available tools.

• A list of the commonly available tools required to upgrade product, and instructions for

upgrading the product, or A statement from a minimum of three computer service, upgrade or refurbishment entities individually, or at least one computer service, upgrade or refurbishment entity working under an independent entity with electronics upgrade expertise that is not a trade organization, confirming that the product design meets requirements of 4.4.2.1

(4)

1. Documentation showing:

• A list of components that can be upgraded, and • A list of commonly available tools required to remove

existing components and install upgraded components, and

• Instructions for disassembly and reassembly that show how the components can be upgraded with the

available tools

• The capability and capacity to upgrade the applicable components via USB or IEEE 1394 serial buses. OR

1. A written statement signed by qualified recyclers that demonstrates familiarity with the product and asserts the conditions of the criterion

• Qualified recyclers shall include either a minimum of three recyclers individually, or at least one recycler working under an independent entity with electronics recycling expertise that is not a trade organization, confirming that the product design meets requirements of 4.4.2.1

AND

2. Written evidence that the recycler(s) signing the statement meet(s) the required qualification

2. Examples of potential evidence for conformance – generally more than one item of evidence may be provided such that conformance is adequately demonstrated

• List of components that can be upgraded • List of tools

• Disassembly instructions in user guide, DFE or DFX report • Demonstration of USB or IEEE 1394 serial bus capability and

capacity to upgrade the applicable components

(5)

3. Questions to assess conformance Documentation provided shows that the product can be upgraded with common available tools.

Has a list of components that can be upgraded been provided? Is the serial bus capability and capacity adequate to practically upgrade the applicable components?

AND

Has the subscriber provided a list of commonly available tools required to remove existing components and install upgraded components and

Have disassembly instructions been provided?

Do the disassembly instructions demonstrate that that the components can be upgraded with the available tools and show how it is done?

OR

Is there a written statement signed by qualified recyclers that demonstrates familiarity with the product and asserts the conditions of the criterion?

Is there written evidence that the recycler(s) signing the statement meet(s) the required qualification?

4. Evaluation guidance Upgradability should at least include optical drives, memory, hard drive and cards.

Qualified recyclers shall include either a minimum of three recyclers individually, or at least one recycler working under an independent entity with electronics recycling expertise that is not a trade organization, confirming that the product design meets requirements of 4.4.2.1.

• “independent” means that the individual does not have an ongoing business relationship with the manufacturer • “entity” could be a recycler or another entity that has

expertise in electronics recycling

Note that upgrading of the product may be limited to designated service entities or the manufacturer.

(6)

4.4.2.2 Optional—Modular design

Verification Guidance

Clarification 6-1

The criterion requires that the processor must be changeable independent of other components such as the circuit board to which it is attached.

Clarification 11

While some criteria require paperwork that pre-dates a

declaration, this particular criterion, 4.4.2.2, does not, since the requirement for this criterion is met by the design and

manufacture of the product. References and Details None available.

Verification Requirements 1. Declaration from manufacturer (see 4.0 Verification Requirement – Declaration from manufacturer) 2. Description of product modules

3. Description of module change method

4.4.2.2 Verification Requirement

Description of product modules

Verification Protocols

1. A list and description of product modules that can be changed/upgraded, including major components such as: • Hard drive and optical drives

• Battery • Motherboard

• Graphic and other cards • Display panel assembly 2. Examples of potential evidence for

conformance – generally more than one item of evidence may be provided

(7)

such that conformance is adequately demonstrated

3. Questions to assess conformance Is there a list of product modules that can be changed/upgraded?

Are each of the modules described?

Are all of the modules listed readily replaceable?

What CPU are you using? Is it soldered to the motherboard?

4. Evaluation guidance This criterion applies to parts that are integrated into the system in such a way that the user can remove and replace them and would typically include items like memory, hard drives, CD/DVDs, CPUs and internal power supplies (for desktops). The availability of USB ports or other external ports does not qualify as “modular design”.

The product does not have to have ALL of the above listed items able to be user replaceable but should have a selection of them.

Certain types of popular CPU’s are generally soldered to the motherboard and therefore not considered to be of modular design per Clarification 6-1

4.4.2.2 Verification Requirement

Description of module change method

Verification Protocols

1. Description on how the modules can be changed/upgraded 2. Examples of potential evidence for

conformance – generally more than one item of evidence may be provided such that conformance is adequately demonstrated

• Disassembly and upgrade instructions on the web or shipped with upgrade module

• User Manual/Service Manual • WEEE documentation

(8)

3. Questions to assess conformance Is there a document detailing the procedures for upgrading modules including disassembly and reassembly instructions, list of tools needed and potential safety precautions?

Are all of the modules listed easily removable, have standard connectors and are readily replaceable?

4. Evaluation guidance Modularity means that major components must be easily removable, have standard connectors, and are readily replaceable.

Processor cannot be soldered to motherboard.

Note that criterion does not require that modules must be changeable by user and may be limited to designated service entities or the manufacturer. However, stating “take item to service entity” does not fulfill the “description of the module change method”, which must be provided for the service entity.

(9)

4.4.3 Product life extension

4.4.3.1 Optional—Availability of replacement parts

Verification Guidance

This criterion will be verified for conformance in geographic regions or countries. Subscriber must demonstrate that the criterion is met in all declared regions/countries.

Clarification 6-3

The following principles shall be applied in determining conformance with criterion 4.4.3.1:

• The whole product is not a part. The intent of the criterion is to extend the life of the product by replacing parts. So replacement of the whole product does not meet the intent.

• The replacement parts must be available regardless of whether the user has taken an extended warranty. • Any charges for replacement parts are up to the

subscriber, or their designated agent (the party who provides the replacement parts).

• The subscriber is responsible for assuring that any agent designated to provide replacement parts will meet the replacement part requirements for the required period of time – 5 years after end of production.

• The subscriber can determine for which parts replacement parts will be made available.

• Parts may, at subscriber’s choice and user notification, be available only through service centers that do the replacement.

• Replacement parts may be after-market, or refurbished, etc.

• EPEAT can verify, within the 5-year period after end-of-production, that this criterion is met for products that have been archived.

The finding of an NC for this criterion should trigger EPEAT staff to request the subscriber to check that corrective action is taken for all their products, where needed. EPEAT staff will subsequently check with the subscriber to make sure that such

(10)

actions have been taken References and Details None available.

Verification Requirements 1. Declaration from manufacturer

2. Description of how product user is informed about how to obtain replacement parts

4.4.3.1 Verification Requirement

Description of how product user is informed about how to obtain replacement parts

Verification Protocols

1. Provide evidence that the criterion is met in all declared-to regions

AND

2. Documentation indicating the company has policy and procedures in place for:

• Assuring the availability of spare parts for five years after the end of production of the product

• Informing the user about sources of replacement parts • Assuring that any user anywhere the product is sold can

obtain replacement parts 2. Examples of potential evidence for

conformance – generally more than one item of evidence may be provided such that conformance is adequately demonstrated

• Sample contract language • Service manual information • Disassembly/upgrade instructions

3. Questions to assess conformance Is there adequate evidence that spare parts are available for five years after the end of production of a product?

Has documentation been provided demonstrating that the user has been informed about sources of replacement parts and can obtain them anywhere the product is sold?

4. Evaluation guidance This criterion is about part replacement, not whole unit replacement and applies to all parts except those that are structural and/or highly unlikely to need replacement. Note that some service parts may only be available through

(11)

product servicing by service entities or manufacturer because they may require professional installation.