1680.2/1680.

3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

IEEE 1680.2 Imaging Equipment & 1680.3 Television Working Groups

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA East Building 12th and Constitution Ave. W

Tuesda ! "ovem#er 1$! 200%

Note: One of the rim!r" #o!$s of the WG meetin# %!s to rovi&e fee&b!'( to the sub#rou s on 'riteri! &eve$o ment. )or this re!son, %e*ve trie& to '! ture !n& re'or& the 'onvers!tion !t ! $eve$ of &et!i$ th!t is not t" i'!$ of our meetin# minutes. Wel&ome Patty Dillon and Pamela Brody!"eine #elcomed everyone to the $irst $ace!to!$ace meeting o$ the %EEE 1&'(.2 and 1&'(.) Wor*ing +rou,s. "olly El#ood o$ the USEPA introduced Bar-ara Cunningham, De,uty Director, U.S. EPA .PP/. She stated EPA0s commitment to #or*ing #ith all the sta*eholders in the develo,ment o$ strong environmental leadershi, standards #hich #ill drive the mar*et,lace. She stated EPA0s a,,reciation $or the tireless hours o$ #or* that has gone into the ,rocess thus $ar. Introdu&tions and 'genda (evie) Patty and Pamela ,rovided some -asic logistics and house*ee,ing $or the meeting. /he Standards Develo,ment Coordinating committee #as introduced, including 1&'(.2 co!chairs, Pamela Brody!"eine and "olly El#ood1 1&'(.) co!chairs, Patty Dillon, 2ohn 3at4 and Shannon Davis1 EASC co!chairs, "olly El#ood and Wayne 5i$er1 and EPEA/ Standards Develo,ment grantees managing the ,rocess, Cat Wilt and 2ac* +ei-ig. Partici,ants introduced themselves. A list o$ meeting attendees is ,rovided as Attachment 1. Pamela revie#ed the agenda $or the ne6t 2 days. +oals $or the meeting include7 Wor*ing +rou, $eed-ac* on strategic and tactical direction o$ su-grou,s and dra$t criteria Su-grou, #or* time Achieve common understanding o$ the timeline

All ,resentations and meeting materials are ,osted on the W+ #e-site. *essons *earned in t+e ,evelopment & Implementation o- IEEE 1680.1680.1 Wayne 5i$er, +reen Electronics Council /he EPEA/ system is designed as a tool $or .E8s to ,romote the environmental attri-utes o$ their ,roducts, and $or ,urchasers to easily identi$y EPP electronic ,roducts. %t is ultimately a measurement tool that manu$acturers can use to distinguish their ,roducts according to their environmental attri-utes, allo#ing manu$acturers to com,ete in the environmental realm. /he Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

core idea -ehind EPEA/ is that meeting the 1&'( Standard at the Bron4e level is readily achieva-le $or manu$acturers #ho have designed their ,roducts #ith the environment in mind, and that the higher tiers o$ Silver and +old ,rovide a real distinguisher $or environmentally su,erior ,roducts. /hat is, the idea -ehind re9uired criteria, #hich ,rovide a -ase o$ environmentally good ,roducts, and o,tional criteria #hich are the -asis $or manu$acturers to demonstrate that their ,roducts are environmentally su,erior. /hat this is #or*ing is demonstrated -y the increased interest o$ com,uter manu$acturers in u,dating the com,uter standard and raising the -ar. /hey #ant EPEA/ to remain a strong -asis $or com,etition -ecause it allo#s them to distinguish their ,roducts. Wayne discussed the ,rogress made -y EPEA/, demonstrated -y the dramatic gro#th in the num-er o$ ,roducts registered to the 1&'( com,uter standard over the ,ast ) years and the num-er o$ com,anies registering ,roducts to the standard. /here has also -een su-stantial gro#th in medium!si4ed regional su-scri-ers in the last cou,le o$ years. A cou,le o$ items #ere not originally envisioned during the develo,ment o$ the com,uter standard. Use o$ the standard and the registry is occurring internationally. /o address this, the 5egistry has -een internationali4ed #ith the a-ility o$ su-scri-ers to declare ,roducts in :( countries. Also, EPEA/ is -eing dra#n into the consumer sector, and that is creating ne# challenges. 5etailers are sho#ing increased interest -ecause they #ish to ,rovide environmental choices to consumers, -ut no one *no#s ho# consumers #ill res,ond. /his ,uts more res,onsi-ility on EPEA/ to create leadershi, standards that #ill -e credi-le to retailers and consumers. /hat has the -ene$it to hel, ,revent a ,atch#or* o$ di$$erent re9uirements arising in the mar*et. We are no# at a critical stage o$ our sta*eholder negotiations #here the sta*eholders must #or* together and com,romise to achieve a consensus. All sta*eholders are res,onsi-le to come to such understandings a-out each other interests and $ind the -alance that meets all sta*eholders0 interests as much as ,ossi-le. +e" , - ./ ; Concern #as e6,ressed a-out achieving -alance -et#een ,rocurement re9uirements <the need $or $ederal agencies to have a su$$iciently large ,ool o$ ,roducts $rom #hich to ,urchase= and leadershi, re9uirements <the need $or EPEA/ to re#ard to, ,er$ormers, #hich may diminish the ,ool o$ eligi-le ,roducts= and ho# such -alance #ould -e achieved. Wayne stated that guidance #ould -e given to su-grou,s in order to hel, them ma*e decisions that -alance these t#o considerations. ; o# that the standards are entering the consumer s,ace, #ill EPEA/ have a consumer la-el> Wayne said that he doesn0t *no#, -ut that #as not the initial intent.

Approved 2010-01-06

Page 2

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

/tandards ,evelopment Timeline! ,elivera#les & 0ro&ess "olly El#ood, U.S. EPA "olly ,rovided an u,date o$ the timeline, #hich is essentially the same as ,reviously ,resented to the W+s, ?ust no# a -it more s,eci$ic going $or#ard. /he timeline is aggressive, -ut #e are trying to *ee, to the schedule so that everyone *no#s that there is an end!,oint. /here is also a concern a-out ensuring that #e maintain resources $or ,aid $acilitation. Details o$ the current timeline, delivera-les, and associated ,rocess are included in a document that #as ,rovided #ith meeting materials. /he ne6t ma?or deadline is 8arch 1 $or all su-grou,s to su-mit dra$t criteria to the W+s. /here #ill -e a meeting in San @rancisco in mid!8arch to ,rovide the W+s #ill an o,,ortunity to revie# and ,rovide $eed-ac* -ac* to the su-grou,s on dra$t criteria. Su-grou,s #ill then revise and a,,rove criteria $or inclusion in the dra$t standard -y 8ay 1. W+s #ill a,,rove the dra$t standard -y 8ay )(, and the dra$t standard is scheduled to go out $or the $irst round o$ -alloting -y 2uly 1. We are assuming a cou,le o$ rounds o$ comments and -alloting, #ith a goal o$ EASC a,,roval and su-mission to ESC.8 -y .cto-er 1', 2(1(. %$ all goes according to schedule, the standard should -e live -y 2anuary, 2(11. 0omments/ ; 8em-ers o$ the W+ e6,ressed concerns a-out7 /he aggressive timeline and our a-ility to meet it. /he standards ,rocess to date!s,eci$ically the im,lementation o$ %EEE guidelines and ,rocedures. ot all su-grou,s having de$ined sco,e statements -e$ore discussing dra$t criteria. /he num-er o$ criteria -eing large related to veri$ication e$$orts and in com,arison to the num-er o$ criteria in %EEE 1&'(.1. ,is&ussion o- ,ra-t 1riteria 2nder ,evelopment Pamela ,rovided an overvie# o$ the current status o$ dra$t criteria. %n advance o$ the meeting, W+ mem-ers #ere sent t#o criteria documents7 1= the $ull te6t o$ criteria currently under discussion #ithin su-grou,s1 and 2= a summary ta-le o$ the criteria. /he criteria are organi4ed into $our sets, or A-uc*etsB o$ criteria7 1= Com,leted dra$t criteria <generally agreed to -y the su-grou,= 2= Criteria under discussion )= Criteria not yet vetted or $ully develo,ed := Criteria ta*en o$$ the ta-le <#ith agreement -y the su-grou,=. Environmentall /ensitive 3aterials /u#group Co!chairs7 Erica Cogan, Dero61 Ste,hen +reene, "o#land +reene Consultants Erica and Ste,hen ,rovided an overvie# o$ the su-grou, sco,e and criteria -eing develo,ed -y this merged %E!/E su-grou,. <See ES8 Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= /he su-grou, -ro*e into ) su-teams, addressing 5."SF5EAC", Approved 2010-01-06 Page )

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

BromineFChlorine, G HualitativeFSa$er Alternatives. /he su-grou, has I criteria that are generally agreed to, 1( that are under discussion, 2 that they haven0t had time to start on, : ta*en o$$ the ta-le, and 2 that #ere held $or Consuma-les su-grou,. %n the 5."SF5EAC" category there are : criteria generally agreed to. +e" , - ./ ; Brie$ discussion o$ #hether there #as agreement -y the su-grou, on the ,resented sco,e, s,eci$ically #hether there #as agreement on ris*!-ased vs. ha4ard!-ased criteria. /here #as a suggestion that the sco,e statements $rom the su-grou,s -e $ormally revie#ed to ensure there is consensus on the statements and that there are no glaring ga,s. The WG Co-Chairs agreed to make approval of subgroup scopes a priority for the December joint WG call ; Huestion on the removal o$ language on Ano intentionally added..,B s,eci$ically had there -een discussion o$ ho# this ,otentially im,acts veri$ication> /he su-grou, has discussed this e6tensively, and they $eel they have reached a net!similar outcome. ; @rom the stand,oint on im,lementation and veri$ication o$ criteria on SE"C and 5EAC", did the grou, discuss di$$iculties related to meeting SE"C re9uirements that #ill -e shi$ted on a &!month -asis> Jes, the su-grou, tried to address this issue -y including a re9uirement that the .E8 demonstrate elimination o$ the material #ith a Date o$ %nclusion o$ one year or more #ithin ,roduct registration #ith EPEA/. ; Was there agreement that recycled materials #ould have an e6em,tion under this criterion1 /he su-grou, needs to revie# this 9uestion. ; +eneral discussion on ho# to -est address issues #here #e are re$erencing items that are coming u, $or revie# in other regulatory sectors. ; Huestion on #hether consideration #ill -e given to EPA0s ne# chemical management ,rogram as an alternative to 5EAC"> /his ,rogram it currently much less develo,ed than 5EAC", and #ould not -e a suita-le alternative. ; Comment that current EU discussions on -atteries are dealing #ith regulatory changes $or cadmium and mercury -atteries, -ut that lead -atteries are $alling under a la-eling schemeK might #ant to loo* into that. 2erform!n'e Go!$s for 3!fer .$tern!tives4the 'on'e t is #ener!$$" !#ree& to, but the sub#rou is sti$$ f$eshin# it out/ ; Huestion on #hether the su-grou, discussed ,otential $or dou-le counting, #ith the category o$ SE"C materials elimination. ; +eneral comment that the su-grou, loo* into the overarching environmental im,acts o$ Asa$er alternatives.B Approved 2010-01-06 Page :

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

Other issues un&er &is'ussion b" the sub#rou / 1= Beyond 5o"S #ith lead 2= 5e,orting on the amount o$ mercury in light sources )= 5EAC" SE"C 5estrictions at the homogenous level := %nventory o$ su-stances used in ,roducts and ,u-lic disclosure L= BromineFChlorine issues7 have t#o su-teams #or*ing in ,arallel, #hich #ill ho,e$ully come together in a cou,le o$ months. Also loo*ing at #ays to de$ine Alo#!halogenB ; +eneral comment that a threshold o$ M(( ,,m is very di$$icult and e6,ensive $or recyclers to achieve. Achieving that lo# level in recycled ,lastic #ould also entail increased out thro# o$ material. A some#hat higher level #ould -e much easier $or recyclers to achieve. By having such a lo# level you discourage use o$ recycled material and a$$ect the recycling industry. 0riteri! Not 5et 6ette&/ Use o$ @)1 Critical minerals. 0riteri! 7!(en Off 7!b$e7 inventory o$ chemicals used in ,roduction1 demonstration o$ not using C85sFPB/s. ; +eneral comment that #hile the criterion regarding inventory o$ chemicals used in ,roduction #as ta*en o$$ the ta-le, there #as recognition that this #as li*ely a direction that #ould -e ,ursued in the $uture. 3aterials /ele&tion /u#group Co!Chairs7 Paul Chalmer1 8i*e Biddle, 8BA Polymers Paul ,rovided an overvie# o$ issues -eing considered -y the %E!/E merged su-grou,, including7 ,ost!consumer recycled content, -io-asedFrene#a-le content, #eight declarations, and assessing environmental im,acts o$ material selection. <See 8aterial Selection Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= 0riteri! Gener!$$" .#ree& 7o7 /he su-grou, reached general agreement on three criteria on ,ost!consumer recycled content, ado,ted $rom the 1&'(.1 criteria. "o#ever, the su-grou, has created an e6clusion list #ith each, in order to address com,onents #ith very incidental uses o$ ,lastics and $or #hich there is no $unctional re,lacement. /his e6clusion list came $rom the /C. standard. +e" , - .7 ; /he terms Aelectronic com,onentsB and Ao,tical com,onentsB seem to -e a very -road terms #hich could include lots o$ com,onents. Was a de$inition o$ these com,onents considered> /his may -e something that should -e -etter de$ined.

Approved 2010-01-06

Page L

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

; Comment ! there are resins under develo,ment no# that #ould address a,,lications included in this list. As*ed that the su-grou, consider the im,act o$ their e6clusions on mar*et demand $or ne# technologies. ; Huestion on #hether e6ternal ,o#er su,,lies have -een included> @or 1&'(.1, they are included. ; /here #as considera-le discussion a-out the recycled content re9uirements. Some comments suggested concern that #e are setting the -ar too lo#, -oth #ith the ,ost!consumer recycled content inclusion <too easy= and #ith all the a,,lica-le e6clusions. %t has -ecome almost a $ree ,oint. Commenters on this ,oint $elt #e should either ram, this u, or ma*e the minimum level a re9uired criterion. /here #as a counter!statement that this should not -e considered a Agive! a#ayB as it ma*es .E8s go through the valua-le e6ercise o$ 9uanti$ying all their materials. ; Huestion o$ #hether there #as consideration o$ ,ost!consumer content $or metals> .r, ta*ing it a ste, $urther and having all materials accounted $or> %t #ill -e under discussion in the near $uture. ; 5egarding the ,otential minimum re9uirement $or recycled content, there #as discussion around the need $or sta-le sources o$ 9uality recycled material. Almost all .E8s allo# the use o$ recycled content, -ut can0t al#ays assure a consistent su,,ly. /his is a *ey su,,lyFdemand issue that should -e recogni4ed. ; A suggestion #as made that the e6clusion list -e turned into a ,otential AinclusionB list $or o,tional ,oints $or uni9ue a,,lications. 0riteri! 8n&er 9is'ussion/ 1= 5e9uired7 8inimum content ,ost!consumer recycled ,lastic. /here is still some hesitancy #ithin the su-grou, on this criterion as there are concerns a-out availa-ility o$ steady sources o$ ,ost!consumer recycled materials. /he criterion #ould not include ,ost!industrial scra, since the material is largely already reused. 2= 5e9uired7 Declaration o$ rene#a-leF-io-ased ,lastic materials content. )= .,tional7 8inimal content o$ rene#a-leF-io-ased ,lastic materials. /here is some discussion #ithin the su-grou, on ho# this relates to 9uestions o$ $ood su,,ly. +e" , - ./ ; /here #as a 9uestion as to #hether the su-grou, considered inclusion o$ other $orms o$ ,ost! industrial recycling, such as industrial scra, s#a,s. ;Was there any calculation o$ #hat ty,e o$ demand the minimum re9uirement #ould create, ,erha,s -ased on the 1&'(.1 sales $igures> .r ho# the 1&'(.1 ,ercent recycled content thresholds relate to %E> /hese calculations could -e used to ?udge #hether the levels are a,,ro,riate. ; /here #as considera-le discussion a-out the em,hasis on ,lastics vs. metals -y the su-grou,. %ssues raised included #hether, given the traditional high recycling rate o$ metals, it #as Approved 2010-01-06 Page &

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

a,,ro,riate to not include them in the criterion. Some sta*eholders $elt that there #as too much em,hasis on ,ost!consumer ,lastics, to the e6clusion o$ other materials. /here #as signi$icant concern e6,ressed that #e lac* ade9uate in$rastructure to create strong ,ost!consumer resin su,,ly in the US. /here #as de-ate a-out #hether this could -est -e addressed -y incentivi4ing the use o$ metal vs. ,lastic, or incentivi4ing use o$ ,ost!consumer ,lastic. /here could also -e consideration o$ selection o$ materials that use less energy or have ,roven environmental -ene$its -ased on CCA!ty,e data. ; .n -io-ased materials discussion7 has there -een any considered o$ other li$e cycle categories> "as there -een consideration o$ #hether -io!-ased materials #ill ,otentially harm the e6isting ,ost!consumer resin recycling in$rastructure> /his latter 9uestions $alls under the E.C su-grou,. 2ro'ess 3u##estion/ %t #ould -e valua-le to chec* the criteria -eing suggested against all the ,roducts that could ,otentially -e registered. @or e6am,le, i$ a ,roduct doesn0t include ,lastic ,arts, are they e6cluded $rom com,eting $or those ,oints> /he W+ Co!chairs noted that this ty,e o$ revie# #ill -e done #hen #e get closer to having $inali4ed dra$t criteria. We #ill evaluate the dra$t criteria to assess -alance, overla,, etc. 0roposed Green+ouse Gas 1riteria "olly El#ood, U.S.EPA, Chair, %E Energy Conservation Su-grou, Shannon Davis, U.S.EPA, Chair, Cor,orate Per$ormance Su-grou, "olly and Shannon discussed +"+ criteria -eing ,ro,osed -y the %E Energy Conservation and 8erged Cor,orate Per$ormance Su-grou,s. /he %E Energy su-grou, is develo,ing ,roduct! s,eci$ic criteria, #hile the Cor,orate Per$ormance su-grou, is develo,ing .E8!level criteria. Both su-grou,s have agreed to not re9uire ,u-lic documentation o$ +"+s or threshold re9uirements $or +"+s. <See +reenhouse +as Emission Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= /he Cor,orate Per$ormance su-grou, has essentially agreed to a disclosure criterion, and an o,tional criterion $or re,orting #ith )rd ,arty veri$ication. +e" , - ./ ; /here #as a 9uestion as to #hy EPEA/ considers cor,orate ,er$ormance #hen it develo,s ,roduct!-ased standards> Cor,orate ,er$ormance #as an area o$ $ocus in 1&'(.1, and there is recognition that cor,orate ,er$ormance can drive environmental ,roduct im,rovements. %t also sim,li$ies matters $or ,urchasers, #ho may #ant to also -e s,eci$ying ,roducts $rom good cor,orate actors. ; Huestion as to #hether the su-grou,s considered Sco,e ) re9uirements> Jes, the grou, discussed, and $elt that harmoni4ed tools did not e6ist to get at Sco,e ) issues. :ner#" 0onserv!tion 3ub#rou 9r!ft 0riteri!/ .,tional7 Cradle!to!+ate analysis and disclosure .,tional7 Cradle!to!+rave analysis and disclosure Approved 2010-01-06 Page I

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

.,tional7 8a*ing analyses ,u-licly availa-le

; %t #as suggested that there -e an agreed u,on de$inition $or Acradle!to!gate.B /he su-grou,s e6,ressed several 9uestions that they have -een #restling #ith7 Should they re$erence the same standards across su-grou,s> Should standards in!,rocess -e re$erenced> Do #e #ant to ma*e +"+ calculations availa-le ,u-licly> Since there are no ,roduct!category rules on ho# #e #ill measure ,roducts #ithin the standard categories, it ma*es it di$$icult to com,are ,rogress. /his #ill have to -e addressed at some ,oint. /he su-grou, has also discussed allo#ing a ,oint $or ma*ing data ,u-licly availa-le, -ut hasn0t decided #hether to suggest inclusion in the US CC% data-ase or one o$ the EU data-ases. ; %t #as suggested that the su-grou, revie# the EUP discussions, #hich included a rough CCA that stated much o$ the +"+ im,act came $rom ,a,er use. /his ,lays a role in the commercial v. consumer 9uestion. ;/here #ere re9uests that the su-grou,s consider the im,acts o$ these criteria on large v. small manu$acturers. ; %t #as suggested that the su-grou,s need to discuss ho# to re,ort +"+s across ?urisdictions. Where ,roducts are manu$actured can ma*e a large di$$erence in the car-on $oot,rint o$ the ,roduct. ; "o# are the #aste im,acts -eing includedFe6cluded in these discussions> Should there -e a -roader CCA A-uc*etB that these categories can -e considered in> ; 2!r(in# ;ot item7 need to -e on the loo*out $or CCA activities and studies that may -e under#ay that may relate to our standards. 2a,an is develo,ing ,roduct!category rules. @rance is develo,ing car-on $oot,rint la-eling $or consumer ,roducts -y 2(11. .ne sta*eholder re$erenced studies $rom inde,endent analysts in -oth @rance <Price Waterhouse= and in +ermany that suggest car-on $oot,rint analysis #as not a,,ro,riate $or ,roduct regulations. ; %s there a need to -etter de$ine the sco,e o$ +"+ re,orting!! Cor,oration as a #hole> Product category> S,eci$ic manu$acturing $acilities> %t #as suggested that #e $ollo#!u, #ith re,resentatives at EPA on ,lans $or the cor,orate climate re,orting ,rogram. ; "as the su-grou, considered other #ays to re9uest data that could contri-ute to environmental ,roduct declarations> Em-odied energy re,orting> CCA data re,orting> ; "ave the sti,ulations o$ the energy im,lications o$ the use!,hase o$ the ,roducts -een considered>

Approved 2010-01-06

Page '

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

1orporate 0er-orman&e /u#group Chair7 Shannon Davis, U.S. EPA /he su-grou, is vetting a num-er o$ ,otential criteria and issues, then #ill #ra, -ac* around and decide #hat needs to -e included. Cor,orate ,er$ormance themes include trans,arency and ,u-licly availa-le data1 accurate and meaning$ul re,orting1 develo,ing criteria #ith greatest leverage1 and in$luencing the su,,ly chain. <See Cor,orate Per$ormance Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= 0riteri! Gener!$$" .#ree& to <in !&&ition to 1680.1 'riteri!=/ 1= 5e9uiredKDemonstration o$ ,u-licly availa-le cor,orate environmental ,olicy consistent #ith %S. 1:((1 2= 5e9uiredKPu-licly availa-le cor,orate re,ort #ith environmental in$ormation 8n&er 9is'ussion/ 5educed im,act o$ ,roduct trans,ortation1 disclosure o$ 1st tier su,,liers1 environmental emissions o$ 1st tier su,,liers1 disclosure o$ #ater dra#n $rom ,u-lic sources. Not 5et 6ette&/ rene#a-le ,o#er ,rocurement1 o,en eco!,atent commons1 im,roved ,er$ormance on reuse and 4ero land$ill1 1st tier su,,lier ,artici,ation in Electronic %ndustry Citi4en Coalition. 7!(en Off 7!b$e7 Climate restoration1 +"+ inventory1 +"+ reduction goal and re,orting1 CCA on ,roduct <sent to Energy conservation su-grou,=. +e" , - ./ ; %s there any ,lan $or moving to#ard social res,onsi-ility> %t #as discussed, -ut since social res,onsi-ility is not ,art o$ the PA5, the su-grou, dro,,ed it. ; 5egarding language under :.I.2, it is an o6ymoron to use the ,hrase Asel$!certi$ication.B Please change to Asel$!declareB in the ne6t dra$t. ; With some o$ these re9uirements, #ill it -e a ,ro-lem $or small -usinesses to enter the EPEA/ mar*et> /here is no cost!analysis #ith those items discussed, -ut one could imagine there #ould -e cost!-arriers. Could cross!re$erence #ith the survey sent out -y Wal8art last year, including to many S8Es. 2ro'ess 3u##estion/ Create a set o$ screens against #hich to consider criteria. /his #ill -e done -y the Coordinating Committee and shared #ith all su-grou, chairs. E4* 3anagement /u#group Co!Chairs7 8ar* Scha$$er, Scha$$er Environmental1 Walter Alcorn, Alcorn Consulting /here #ere originally three criteria in 1&'(.1. /o date, there are no agreed u,on criteria in the su-grou,. A signi$icant ,ortion o$ the early #or* o$ the su-grou, #as related to vetting availa-le E.C recycling standards1 the su-grou, hosted #e-inars on t#o such standards. /he su-grou, has agreed that the criteria #ill include A52, E!Ste#ards, or E9uivalentB as ,art o$ the Approved 2010-01-06 Page M

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

criteria. /hey are #or*ing on an E.C re9uirements chec*list1 this is $urther necessitated -y %EEE re9uirements that standards not re$erence a ,ro,rietary ,rogram. <See E.C 8anagement Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= +e" , - ./ ; Huestion on ho# trans-oundary #aste #ill -e handled> What rules #ill a,,ly> /his #ill -e handled in the E.C chec*list, in terms o$ e9uivalency to E!Ste#ards and 52. ; A sta*eholder noted that there are some -atteries in the -ac*!u, ,o#er su,,lies in some ,roducts. %nclusion o$ these may hel, to *ee, the standard $resh. ; eed to clari$y %EEE guidance on re$erencing e6isting standards <and associated accredited certi$ications=. /he su-grou, has had signi$icant discussion a-out ta*e-ac* re9uirements, including convenience and accessi-ility re9uirements. What is a Acom,etitively!,ricedB ta*e-ac* ,rogram $or consumer televisions> /hey have a -asic 9uestion a-out #hether this standard is an a,,ro,riate vehicle to deal #ith this issue. /here is no consistency on E.C re9uirements across state ,olicies. %$ they address ta*e-ac*, should it -e a ,roduct!-ased criterion $or the declared ,roduct, or should it -e a cor,orate!-ased ,rogram across an entire grou, o$ ,roducts> "o# should #e deal #ith historic coverage v. on ne# ,roduct sales> Comments regarding ta*e-ac* issues included7 @or sco,ing, don0t assume there are no institutional ,urchases o$ /Es <around 1(N=. .E8s are already ta*ing much o$ this on, and it shouldn0t -e ,ushed $urther. %$ #e don0t ade9uately deal #ith E.C ta*e-ac* issues, the standard #ill -e less credi-le. /he issue o$ a national ta*e-ac* system sort o$ mor,hed into the discussion o$ convenience. %$ this is a leadershi, standard, this could -e an o,tional ,oint $or those com,anies that are thin*ing o$ creative #ays to deal #ith ta*e-ac*. /a*e-ac* re9uirements could e$$ectively ,rohi-it S8Es $rom registering ,roducts. %t is ,ossi-le to not register in countries #here there is no national ta*e-ac* ,rogram. /hese issues, and some re$erenced in the +"+ discussion, may -e ,ushing the -oundaries o$ #hat is covered under EPEA/. /his may -e an issue $or the EASC or some other um-rella entity. 2I EU countries re9uire manu$acturer ta*e-ac* o$ ,roducts through in$rastructure su,,lied -y munici,alities. %$ this cannot -e done in the US, one should as* ho# this ,roduct can -e tac*led. /he materials in these ,roducts are considered Alo#!gradeB commodities that are e6,orted. /his ma*es it more critical to include ta*e-ac* in EPEA/, to *ee, $rom dum,ing lo#!grade materials on other countries. By re9uiring ta*e-ac*, it may ma*e EPEA/!registered ,roducts more e6,ensive. Does this send a negative signal that green ,roducts are more e6,ensive> Can #e con$irm that this is a ta*e-ac* ,rogram and not a ,ic*!u, ,rogram> Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1(

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

>oint WG meetin# !&?ourne& for in&ivi&u!$ sub#rou meetin#s, in'$u&in# mer#e& @:-76 :nvironment!$$" 3ensitive M!teri!$s, mer#e& @:-76 M!teri!$ 3e$e'tion, !n& @: 0onsum!b$es. Meetin# notes for these bre!(out sessions !re oste& on the sub#rou &ire'tories.

Approved 2010-01-06

Page 11

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

Wednesda ! "ovem#er 18! 200% IEEE 1680.2 Imaging Equipment WG 5reakout

Pamela Brody!"eine ,resented the agenda $or the morning meeting o$ 1&'(.2 Wor*ing +rou,. . rov!$ of 9/17 Meetin# Minutes7 /he minutes #ere distri-uted a cou,le o$ months ago, -ut #ere not a,,roved. 3inutes )ere approved as presented. Indoor 'ir 6ualit /u#group Co!Chair7 2osh Saunders, UC Environment 2osh descri-ed the #or*ing ,rocess o$ the grou, and the sco,e $or the su-grou,. <See %ndoor Air Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details.= Gener!$$" .#ree& 8 on 0riteri!/ 5e9uired!! 5eduction o$ Product Emissions7 Demonstration that the ,roduct does not e6ceed the emission rate o$ the $ollo#ing su-stances #hen tested in accordance #ith %S.F%EC 2')&(!2((I using the 5ACUO 122 o,tions $or emission calculations methods7 /E.C, Ben4ene, Styrene, .4one, Dust. +e" , - ./ ; Was there discussion a-out ho# di$$erent technologies might im,act %AH> /here #as discussion, -ut since Blue Angel does not di$$erentiate, the su-grou, chose not to. ; 5egarding the language o$ the Aa,,lies toB statementKthis language must -e translated into di$$erent classes o$ ,roducts that are registered. %s there any #ay to standardi4e it #ithin the ,ream-le or some,lace else> /his can receive $urther discussion.. ; Does this e6clude co,iers and high!s,eed devices> o, in general terms it #ould e6clude large $ormat ,rinters and ,rint sho, de,artment!ty,e ,rinters. /he W+ sco,e does not include high!s,eed, ,rint sho, s,ecialty machines. What a-out the emissions $or those o,erations> /he su-grou, did not $ind any data that ade9uately descri-ed those emissions. /here #as a re9uest that the su-grou, reconsider the ,otential o$$!gassing issues related to casings. ; "as the %AH su-grou, loo*ed at im,acts o$ consuma-les items> Jes, as ,art o$ the testing, the -asic consuma-les such as ,a,er and a standard .E8 cartridge su,,lied #ith the ,roduct are tested. ; 5egarding the ,rint s,eed re9uirements7 %s there any concern that the designation o$ a ,rint s,eed #ill -e anti9uated in the near $uture> Will ,rinters that ,rint $aster than this -e e6em,ted> /his #ould -e good data to have -e$ore this criterion is a,,roved. ; Was there consideration o$ a disclosure re9uirement> Jes, it #as discussed, -ut the su-grou, didn0t $eel that there #as su$$icient ca,a-ility to educate the user so that the data #as use$ul. Approved 2010-01-06 Page 12

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

; Beyond issues o$ %AH, should there -e a re9uirement $or general com,liance #ith an EC8A! ty,e declaration> Would it -e use$ul> %t #as suggested that this might -e a good ,ar*ing lot issue. 0riteri! 8n&er 9is'ussion/ .,tional Criteria $or the reduction o$ ,roduct emissions o$ additional su-stances, including %E.Cs, $ormaldehyde. @urther discussion necessary on the use o$ emissions rates vs. room models as #ell as su-stance limits. ; Are %E.Cs considered discrete chemicals> ; Did they address any emissions $rom PECs in casings> /his #ould -e ca,tured -y e6isting testing ,rotocols. Energ 1onservation /u#group Chair7 "olly El#ood, USEPA. Building $rom the +"+ discussion yesterday, "olly re$erenced the remaining issues under the Su-grou,. 0riteri! Gener!$$" .#ree& to/ 1= /#o 5e9uiredKCo# Stand-y Po#er Consum,tion, harmoni4ing $or the $ederal re9uirements -y @E8P and the u,coming EU re9uirements. 2= .,tionalKAuto Po#er Do#n to Co# Stand-y 8ode 0riteri! 8n&er 9is'ussion/ 1= Product S,eci$ic +"+ Criteria 0riteri! Not 5et 6ette&/ 1= Use o$ Energy Star or CCA to demonstrate im,rovements 2= Huali$y or com,ly #ith Energy Star at time o$ declaration )= Early ado,tion o$ ne# Energy Star A,,lications := Du,le6ing +e" , - ./ ; "o# do these stand-y re9uirements correlate to other orth American standards, such as announced Canadian stand-y regulations> /he Canadian re9uirements are higher than -oth @E8P and EU re9uirements. ; What is Aclass B>B Class B is an E8C!re9uirement. Class A is not recommendedFintended to -e used in the home. /here #as agreement that this de$inition needed to -e added to the criteria $or clarity. ; Are net#or*ed ,rinters e6em,ted> /his is a con$using terminology issue, due to di$$ering regulatory de$initions o$ o$$!mode, stand!-y, etc. et#or*ed com,uters are included. 8ore clarity #ould -e use$ul in the criteria on this area.

Approved 2010-01-06

Page 1)

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

; 5egarding du,le6ing, are the discussions going to -e related to Energy Star thresholds $or shi,,ing #ith de$aults on> o. Energy Star ?ust re9uires ,rinters to have du,le6ing ca,a-ility. /he criterion u, $or discussion #ould re9uire du,le6ing to -e set as a de$ault on all shi,,ed EPEA/ registered %E ,roducts.. 1onsuma#les /u#group Co!Chairs7 Pamela Brody!"eine, Eco!Ste#ardshi, Strategies1 Cat Wilt, University o$ /ennessee. Pamela recogni4ed the ,ast leadershi, o$ Christo,her 3ent #ith the USEPA, #ho recently had to ste, do#n $rom his co!chair ,osition. /his su-grou, has agreed to the $ollo#ing sco,e. /he Consuma-les Su-grou, is #or*ing to#ards develo,ing criteria that address the $ollo#ing to,ics7 1= Allo#ing use o$ rene#a-le or recycled content, or chlorine ,rocess $ree ,a,er 2= Allo#ing use o$ non!.E8 cartridges )= 5es,onsi-le end o$ li$e management o$ cartridges := ot inhi-iting reuse o$ cartridges 0riteri! Gener!$$" .#ree& 7o7 1= 5e9uired!!Co,y Pa,er7 Allo#ing use o$ rene#a-le andFor recycled content and chlorine ,rocess $ree ,a,er. 0riteri! 8n&er 9is'ussion7 5e9uired!!Allo# use o$ non!.E8 cartridges7 not limit the use o$ non!.E8 cartridges. 0riteri! Not 5et 6ette& !!5es,onsi-le E.C management o$ cartridges !! ot inhi-iting reuse o$ cartridges 0riteri! 7!(en Off 7!b$e7 8aterials Selection Environmentally Sensitive 8aterials Product Jield Design $or Congevity Universality Car-on %m,acts User %n$ormation 8ar*ing o$ Plastic Parts +e" , - ./ ; /here is o-vious need $orFinterest in a standard $or toner cartridges. +reenSeal has suggested that toner cartridges are on their list o$ ,roducts ,rioriti4ed $or $uture standards develo,ment, ho#ever they #on0t -e ta*ing them u, $or at least a year. A sta*eholder mentioned that there is a Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1:

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

cartridge standard -eing develo,ed under %S.1 the ,articulars o$ this ,rocess #ill -e shared #ith the su-grou,. ; 5egarding ,a,er, #as there a ,a,er thic*ness or #eight s,eci$ied> What a-out issues related to use o$ light#eight ,a,er voiding #arranties> ; Comment7 /here should -e consistency in ho# #e address anything shi,,ed #ith the ,roduct. Cartridges ,resent a huge ,otential materials stream that is im,ortant to the recycling industry. Could there -e o,tional ,oints $or .E8s that ,ursue such ,rograms> ; As a general ,oint, there may need to -e higher!level decision regarding #hether issues ta*en o$$ the ta-le -y one su-grou, can -e ,ic*ed u, -y another. Under %EEE and EASC ,olicies, sco,es are su,,osed to -e vetted -y the W+s, and the su-grou,s are su,,osed to do the #or* o$ the W+. /he a-ility o$ EPEA/ to -e a Aone!sto, sho,B $or ,urchasers is not -eing satis$ied i$ some o$ these issues are ta*en o$$ the ta-le. ; /he issues o$ esta-lishing criteria $or some cartridges <those shi,,ed #ith the ,roduct= and not others <re,lacement cartridges= creates large ,otential im,lications $or a level!,laying $ield. ; "as the su-grou, considered ne# technologies on in*s> /his has not -een dealt #ith yet.

IEEE 1680.3 Television WG 5reakout

Patty Dillon ,resented the agenda $or the se,arate meeting o$ the /elevision Wor*ing +rou,. . rov!$ of 10/27/09 76 Meetin# Minutes/ 3inutes )ere approved )it+ t)o &orre&tions -- the a$$iliations o$ D0Cane Wisner <ACC= and 8ar* Shar, <Panasonic=. T7 Energ 1onservation /u#group Co!chair7 8i*e Coo,, heyCoo, CCC 8i*e Coo,, assisted -y 2ohn 3at4, U.S. EPA, re,orted on the Energy Conservation su-grou, criteria. /hey ,resented the dra$t sco,e statement and re9uested W+ $eed-ac*. /hey ,revie#ed the u,coming Energy Star standard. Energy Star :.( is due out in 8ay 2(1(1 and L.( is scheduled $or 8ay 2(12. S,eci$ications include on mode ,o#er consum,tion, slee, mode ,o#er consum,tion, luminance, do#nload ac9uisition mode <DA8=, and no grand$athering. Energy Star L.( also ca,s ,o#er consum,tions regardless o$ screen si4e. An overvie# o$ the dra$t Energy Conservation criteria #ere ,resented, including ,ro,osed re9uired and o,tional criteria. /here #as lengthy discussion a-out setting a dynamic standard #here EPEA/ criteria #ould automatically re$lect the changes in Energy Star. Another 9uestion ,osed #as the necessity o$ an eligi-le ,roduct going through Energy Star certi$ication $irst and then EPEA/. /he W+ agreed to tal* more a-out the s,eci$ic #ording o$ the criteria in the -rea*out grou, later in the morning. Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1L

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

.ther criteria under discussion include ,o#ering do#n $or lac* o$ vie#er movement, ,roduct car-on $oot,rint $rom cradle to gate, and integrated o,tical dis* ,layer and ca-le or satellite receiver. %ndustry may -e a-le to ,rovide some li$e cycle energy data to hel, the W+ assess the value o$ a car-on $oot,rint criterion. See /E Energy Conservation Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details on ,ro,osed criteria. T7 ,esign -or End o- *i-e /u#group Co!Chairs, Anne Peters, +racestone, %nc.1 @ran* 8arella, Shar, Electronics Anne Peters re,orted the D$E.C issues $or /Es are much more challenging than they are $or com,uters, in ,art -ecause the com,uter recycling sector is $ar more develo,ed than /E recyclingFre$ur-ishing e$$orts. /he ne# technologies o$ CED, ,lasma and CCD a$$ect these e$$orts, too. 8oney is -eing made re$ur-ishing and recycling televisions no#1 the average li$e s,an o$ a /E is 1' !22 years. /here are three ma?or categories o$ criteria under consideration $or /E D$E.C7 1= Product disassem-ly1 2= 5ecycla-ility o$ ,lastics and1 )= Planning and analysis $or end o$ li$e. See /E D$E.C Po#erPoint ,resentation and criteria document $or additional details on ,ro,osed criteria. /here #as discussion around the im,ortance o$ *no#ing #here all ,arts o$ the /E are, es,ecially ha4ardous ones, so that recyclers can get them out. %t #as re,orted that ,arts #ith "g are going into shredders -ecause o$ inaccessi-ility. e# technologies re9uire ongoing, u,dated in$ormation.

(e&onvening o- 8oint 1680.2 and 1680.3 Working Groups

/he W+s reconvened to discuss several issues common to -oth the 1&'(.2 and 1&'(.) W+s. ,e-inition o- Institutional and 1onsumer -or 9'pplies to: /he W+s may #ant to di$$erentiate mar*ets in the AA,,lies toB section o$ criteria, as is done #ithin 1&'(.1. /he Aa,,lies toB designation #ould -e used $or ,roduct declarations, and in assessing con$ormance. Patty ,ro,osed that the W+s consider a de$inition -ased on ,ercentage o$ sales to the mar*et segment. ,uestions !n& 0omments/ ;Are there circumstances #here a ,roduct could declare $or -oth mar*ets> "o# does the registry enter into it> Would de$initions need to di$$er across ,roduct categories> /his #ould have to -e de$ined care$ully, to reduce li*elihood o$ a #ay to game the system. ; %t #as suggested that #e consider ,oint!o$!sale, #hich isn0t clean -ut may ,rovide some guidance. ; Concerns #ere e6,ressed a-out veri$ication re9uirements. %$ declarations o$ customer lists are re9uired, this might not -e legal. Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1&

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

;5ather than dealing #ith it in the Aa,,lies toB category, it could -e done -y creating ,arallel criteria $or institutional v. consumer ,roducts. ; Could consider having EPEA/ incor,orate the administrative re9uirements o$ ,roving category, rather than having the .E8s do it. ; 8a*e sure to consider the international im,lications o$ this issue. 2!tt" reAueste& vo$unteers for ! 3ub'ommittee to #ener!te ro os!$s for ho% to !&&ress this issue. 6o$unteers in'$u&e&/ >ohn +!tB, 3!r!h O*Crien, M!rio Dufino, !n& 2!t M'2h!i$. WG Input on 1orporate 0er-orman&e /u#group /he W+ Co!chairs as*ed ,artici,ants to ,rovide additional in,ut to the Cor,orate Per$ormance su-grou, on ,rioriti4ing to,ics $or criteria develo,ment. /he e6ercise #as a ,rocess $or W+ mem-ers to #eigh in and ,rovide guidance $or su-grou, consideration, not a directive. 0omments !n& ,uestions/ ;At this time, some mem-ers e6,ressed concern that the sco,e o$ the cor,orate ,er$ormance su-grou, team had not -een dra$ted and, as a result, a vote #as -eing ta*en on a list o$ criteria that had not yet -een determined to -e #ithin the sco,e o$ the su-grou,. /hese mem-ers e6,ressed their o-?ection that a vote #as -eing ta*en -e$ore the relevance o$ the criteria had -een evaluated. %n e$$ect, #ould this vote ?usti$y their inclusion regarding o$ the sco,e o$ the su-grou,> Pamela em,hasi4ed that the W+ #as ,roviding guidance to the su-grou, to hel, them ,rioriti4e their discussions over the ne6t $e# months since they have many issues under consideration, and this #as not a vote on acce,tance o$ criteria. ;Several mem-ers o$ the W+ e6,ressed concerns a-out this ty,e o$ tally and re9uested the o,tion to either not ,artici,ate or cast their votes in $avor o$ none o$ the choices listed a-ove in order to demonstrate their o-?ection to this ,rocess. Pamela said that W+ mem-ers could a-stain $rom ,artici,ating in the e6ercise. Partici,ants #ere as*ed to select three to,ics they consider most im,ortant $or the cor,orate ,er$ormance su-grou, to $ocus their attention on $rom the $ollo#ing list o$ to,ics under consideration -y the su-grou,. /he tally o$ votes cast $or the to,ic is in ,arentheses. 1= 5educed im,act o$ ,roduct trans,ortation <22= 2= Disclosure o$ 1st /ier su,,liers <1= )= Environmental emissions o$ 1st /ier su,,liers <:= := Disclosure o$ #ater dra#n $rom ,u-lic sources <M= L= 5ene#a-le ,o#er ,rocurement <&= &= .,en eco!,atent commons <initiative o$ the WBCSD= <I= I= %m,roved ,er$ormance on reuse and 4ero!land$ill <)2= '= 1st /ier su,,lier ,artici,ation in various standards <1)= Approved 2010-01-06 Page 1I

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

M= Emissions $rom manu$acturing <1L= (evie) o- 0ro&ess -or 3oving ;or)ard."e<t /teps Pamela revie#ed *ey Ane6t ste,sB identi$ied during the ,ast t#o days0 #or*. Com,lete and get W+ a,,roval on su-grou, sco,e statements @urther clari$ication on re$erence ,ro,rietaryFtrademar* standards and the im,lications $or various su-grou,s Set u, ,rocesses to revie# criteria through di$$erent lenses such as -alance amongst ,er$ormance categories, num-er o$ re9uired versus o,tional, su-scri-er understanding, veri$ication, etc. e6t ste,s include7

/here #as a revie# o$ the timeline, #ith the o,,ortunity to as* 9uestions regarding decision! ma*ing ,rocesses. ,uestions - 0omments/ ; %s the 8arch 1 deadline $or dra$t criteria $rom the su-grou,s hard!and!$ast date, meaning that #ill nothing else -e considered in the standard other than those items that are ,resented -y that ,oint> /he true dro,!dead date is 8ay 1. Some issues can -e ,resented #ith o,tions $or W+ $eed-ac* <though this should -e the e6ce,tion=. Su-grou, decisions on issues such as language, individual criteria, etc, can -e handled #ith sim,le ma?ority votes in the su-grou,. /he entire A-undleB o$ criteria has to -e sent $or#ard at the same time #ith ILN a,,roval $rom the su-grou,. When it comes $rom the su-grou,s to the W+, as,ects o$ the su-grou,s0 decisions can -e amended or changed, -ut those changes have to -e a,,roved -y the #hole W+. ; Suggest develo,ing an @AH a-out voting ,rotocols $or the criteria develo,ment and a,,roval ,rocess. ;A W+ mem-er raised concerns a-out ho# the criteria related to the Princi,les and suggested that the ,rinci,les -e used as a means to ensure that the criteria meet the overall o-?ectives o$ EPEA/. /here #as also discussion that the ,rocess $or evaluating EPEA/ criteria is not clear and has not -een communicated to #or*ing grou, mem-ers. %t #as $urther suggested that a su-team -e created to assist in develo,ment o$ a chec*list $or use -y su-grou,s in evaluating criteria against the Princi,les. "e<t meeting! ,e&em#er 1$! 200%7 /his #ill -e a ?oint call o$ the 1&'(.2 G 1&'(.) W+s, and #ill $eature a re,ort $rom the Pac*aging Su-grou, as #ell as a,,roval o$ su-grou, sco,e statements. 1losing (emarks= "olly El#ood, USEPA. "olly than*ed everyone $or their immense dedication to the ,rocess to date and $or their terri$ic #or* during the meeting.

Approved 2010-01-06

Page 1'

1680.2/1680.3 November 17-18, 2009 WG Minutes

'tta&+ment 1
IEEE 1680.2 & 1680.3 Working Groups 'ttendees! "ovem#er 1$>18! 200%
Allen Bla*ey, /he Einyl %nstitute Andy "arlan, 5ochester %nstitute o$ /echnology Ann go, .$$ice o$ the Euro,ean Union, 8ar*et Access G Com,liance, U.S. De,t o$ Commerce Anne Peters, +racestone, %nc. Ashley @oster, Scienti$ic Certi$ication Systems Bar-ara Cunningham, USEPA Bar-ara 3yle, Electronics /a*eBac* Coalition Bill "uggins, Static Control Com,onents, %nc. Brian "ilton, 5ochester %nstitute o$ /echnology Bruce /urner, "e#lett Pac*ard Carol "et$ield, EPA Cat Wilt, Ctr. $or Clean Products, U/ Chris Cleet, %/%C Chris Payne, Ca#rence Ber*eley CaChris Saunders, Ce6mar* Christo,her 3ent, US EPA ! E E5+J S/A5 Cindy Erie, E!World 5ecyclers DPCane Wisner, DPCane Wisner G Associates, CCC Dere* Dao, Samsung Electronics Eric "arris, %S5% Erica Cogan, Dero6 Cor,oration @ran* 8arella, Shar, Electronics Cor,oration "olly El#ood, EPA "olly Evans, Strategic Counsel, CCC 2. 5ay 3ir-y, Star Plastics 2ac* +ei-ig, U/ 2ames 8e?ia, 5edemtech 2anet 8. Smith, Ce6mar* %nternational 2ason 3elley, Ce6mar* %nternational 2e$$ Eagen, D.E 2e$$ .melchuc*, +EC 2enni "yo?in Chun, C+ Electronics %nc 2enny Ste,henson, US EPA 2im Darr, US EPA 2oel 3enney, %srael Chemicals 2ohn 3at4, US EPA 2ohn Schoa$$, USEPA 2ohnny Sears, Ce6mar* %nternational, %nc. 2on @airhurst, Shar, Ca-s o$ America 2onathan Wood, De$ra 2os Bee*#ilder, .cQ /echnologies B.E. 2ose,h Bur9uist, "e#lett!Pac*ard 2osh Saunders, UC Environment 2oyce Choi, Sony Electronics %nc. 2udy Cevin, Center $or Environmental "ealth 2um 3im, Dis,lay /echnologies, Corning %nc. 3ei*o Jo*oyama, Sony Electronics %nc. 3en 3hoa guyen, De,artment o$ De$ense 3enneth Co#e, E%O%., %nc. 3im "oliday, 3" Com,liance Consulting, CCC 3ousu*e %to, 5icoh Americas Cor,oration Caura "ey#ood, U3C5A Caura ase$, USEPA Cucian /ur*, Dell, %nc. 8ario 5u$ino, Canon USA 8ar* Cor-ett, Pitney Bo#es %nc 8ar* Sa?-el, USDA 8ar* Scha$$er, Scha$$er Environmental CCC 8ar* Shar,, Panasonic 8ichael Anderson, Eastman 3oda* Com,any 8ichael +ell, Dan$eon 8i*e Biddle, 8BA Polymers, %nc. 8i*e Coo,, heyCoo,, CCC 8issy "ayes, 8itsu-ishi Digital Electronics America Pamela Brody!"eine, EcoSte#ardshi, StrategiesFOWA Patricia Dillon, Dillon Environmental Associates Patric* 8cPhail, /oshi-a Paul Chalmer, Paul Chalmer 5ic Erdheim, Phili,s Electronics 5ich +oodstein, Ce6mar* 5ich Eernam, Panasonic 5ichard 3err, Bayer 8aterial Science 5ichard 3roc*, /he Einyl %nstitute 5o-in Schneider, Pu-lic 5esearch Wor*s Sandra Cannon, US De,artment o$ Energy Sarah .PBrien, +EC Sarah Westervelt, Basel Action et#or* Scott Steady, Air Huality Sciences, %nc. Shannon Davis, USEPA S*i, Condon, Static Control Com,onents Ste,hanie Castorina, %PC Ste,hen +reene, "o#land +reene Steve Scherrer, Chemtura Cor,oration Steve /olan, .ce Sue Chiang, Center $or Environmental "ealth Susan D. Candry, Al-emarle Cor,oration /odd Wash-urn, SAB%C %nnovative Plastics /ricia 2udge, %nt0l %maging /echnology Council Ealerie 5ic*man, %/%C Eincent van Di?*, E/%5A Walter Alcorn, Alcorn Consulting Wayne 5i$er, EPEA/ Werner Bec*er, 8erc* 3+aA, Ci9uid Crystals Div. Juichi Somemori, Shar, Electronics Cor,oration Eia Phone7 Steve 5isotto, American Chemistry Council

Approved 2010-01-06

Page 1M

Page 2(