Television Study Group Meeting Agenda

IEEE 1680.2 IMAGING EQUIPMENT WORK GROUP MEETING MINUTES Wednesday February 25, 2009 1 PM to 3 PM EST

Welcome from Pamela Brody-Heine and Holly Elwood, co-chairs.

Working Group Attendees: Michael Anderson (Eastman) Ron Mateas (Epson) Ligia Bejat (Lexmark) Alex McPherson (Clean Production Action) Cate Berard (USEPA) Jennifer Miyamoto (Xerox) Mike Biddle (MBA Polymers) Jeffrey Olsen (PA DEP) Pamela Brody-Heine (ZWA) Paul Panepinto (Green Plug) Joe Burquist (HP) Colleen Pickford (ITI) Sandra Cannon (US DOE) Ed Pinero (RIT) Scott Canonico (HP) Tim Ringo (Konica Minolta) Stephanie Castorina (IPC) Simon Redding (UK Environment Agency) Sue Chiang (Ctr. For Environmental Health) Mario Rufino (Canon) Mark Corbett (Pitney Bowes) Mark Sajbel (USDA) Jim Crossland (Infoprint Solutions) Itaru Sato (Sharp) Derek Dao (Samsung) Chris Saunders (Lexmark) Anantha Desikan (Israel Chemicals) Josh Saunders (UL) Patty Dillon (Dillon Env. Associates) Mark Schaffer (Schaffer Environmental) Holly Elwood (EPA) Steve Scherrer (Bromine Science & Cindy Erie (E-World Recyclers) Environmental Forum) Holly Evans (Canon) Schirru Nicola (Self) Faridoon Farhut (CIWMB) Bert Simon (USGS) Joshua Gallegos (Sandia Nat. Labs) Toni Stein (CA) Stephen Greene (Howland Greene) Paul Swoveland (Lexmark) Andy Harlan (RIT) Steve Tolan (Oce) Tanja Hermann (SmartEE Consulting) Leonard Tsai (self) Christopher Kent (EPA Energy Star) Lucien Turk (Dell) Richard Kerr (Bayer) Cat Wilt (Univ. of TN) Jocelyn Leney (TerraChoice) D’lane Wisner (American Chemistry Council) Judy Levin (Ctr. For Env. Health) Jonathan Wood (Defra) Aubrey Wooley (Canon)

Observers and Others Attendees: Pamela Biel Hans Wendschlag (ECMA) Debra Melton (National Park Svc.)

Agenda Review No comments on the agenda.

Approval of January Minutes January meeting minutes were approved as presented. Approved minutes will be posted on the public portion of the site.

Updates Co-Chairs provided updates related to the 1680.2 Working Group.  EPEAT 1680.2—will be the common prefix for emails for ease of reference.  Meeting invitations—we have been using Outlook for invitations; if this is an incompatible system for you, please contact Pamela.  Webinar access—we have access to a webinar service through EPA if the group would like to use it in the future.  TV Study Group 2/12 meeting—had a straw poll (non-binding) of 50 stakeholders on whether they support for moving forward with a TV standard. Results were:  34 supported development of a standard  9 generally supported development of standard but wanted to discuss further  3 not sure whether to support development  4 do not support development of the standard  The 1680.1 Standard is going to ballot 3/11 - deadline for registering is March 8. Inform Holly at [email protected] if interested.  Working Group Code of Conduct—Given the large size of the Working Group, and the likelihood of healthy discussions and debates, we need to remind ourselves of the Working Group Code of Conduct in the EASC policies and procedures standards.  Working Group member participation requirements—We have two levels of participation:  Rostered member – For members able to fulfill the obligations of active participation which shall include participation in most meetings of the Working Group and not missing participation in two meetings in sequence.  Observer - For stakeholders that are not able to commit to active participation, but would like to stay engaged to the extent that they can. Observers will not have voting rights, but will receive email notices, be able to join meetings on an ad hoc basis and participate in subgroups. An EASC guidance on international participation in the process is now posted on the EASC webpage.  Link to Patent information on page—this is located on the www.epeatdevelopment.net website for reference.

Process Roadmap Review The Working Group reviewed the strategy for breaking into subgroups, developing common criteria, and coordination with the TV group. The strategy includes:  The 1680.2 Working Group, and if moving forward, the TV Group breaks into subgroups based on identified performance criteria  Each subgroup is responsible for review of the existing criteria and identification of those criteria that are likely to be cross-cutting amongst standards; any criterion that has product specific considerations is not a good candidate for common criteria  Representatives from each of the 1680.2 subgroups come together the with representatives from the comparable TV subgroup (if the TV Study Group proceeds to a Working Group), and interested parties from the 1680.1 Working Group to refine the list of common criteria for that performance category and develop the common criteria

 Each Working Group will review and approve the common criteria for their Standard

Draft Project Authorization Form (PAR) The Working Group reviewed current iteration of the draft PAR, which is posted on the website. All revisions in the PAR have been agreed to by the Working Group, with the exception of 2 sentences in Section 5.4.

The co-chairs laid out the process for decision making for this agenda item:  Work towards consensus  If we cannot achieve consensus, then we will take a vote on the language in the two sentences. As we have quorum, the vote will include rostered members on the call, and will be decided by a majority of the votes  As the rest of the PAR has been agreed to by the Working Group, once the decision is made on the two sentences, the PAR will be considered final

Below are two options for those sentences that had been presented; Option #1 is the language that was initially in the draft PAR and is in the 1680 standard; and Option #2 is a revision proposed by stakeholders during the 1/28 call. The Option #2 language is the same language that is currently in the draft TV PAR.

“Option #1 (existing text): This Imaging Equipment Standard is intended to provide a tool for government, institutional and corporate purchasers. Product manufacturers may also use this tool to earn recognition in the consumer market, recognizing that certain criteria may not be applicable to all types of purchasers.

Option #2 (stakeholder proposed text) This Imaging Equipment Standard is intended to provide a tool for government, institutional, and corporate and consumer purchasers. Product manufacturers may also use this tool to earn recognition in these consumer markets, recognizing that certain criteria may not be applicable to all types of purchasers.”

Two questions were raised during the 1/28 call. Responses to those questions are as follows: 1) Q: Interest of consumers in having a standard that could be referenced at retail? A: Best Buy, Walmart, and Office Depot have all stated support for such a tool at the consumer level. 2) Q: What is the 1680 umbrella language regarding the scope of each standard? A: The language in the 1680 draft Standard states that each workgroup can determine the scope of the market which is appropriate for each individual standard.

It was also acknowledged that there may be some different understandings of the Option 1 language.

A potential compromise that had been developed prior to the call was presented by stakeholders: Move forward with the language in Option 1, with the clear understanding that criteria for

consumers can be discussed, and specifically, that there would a takeback service provision for consumers included in the Standard.

Some stakeholders, primarily in the purchaser and public/other stakeholder categories were not comfortable with this compromise, and felt that Option 2 was the appropriate language. Many in the manufacturer’s stakeholder category were willing to move forward with the compromise.

Another language option was offered: This Imaging Equipment Standard is intended to provide criteria for imaging equipment devices designed for government, institutional, corporate and consumer use. Purchasers may buy from any included category. Product manufacturers may also use this tool to earn recognition in any of these consumer markets, recognizing that certain criteria may not be applicable to all types of purchasers.”

One stakeholder expressed a desire to make sure that the criteria developed to address indoor air quality be tailored to address exposure differences for institutional purchasers and consumers – office vs. home settings. The co-chairs suggested that a friendly amendment is added to the Option 1 compromise, such that it would include consideration of consumer for both product take-back and IAQ requirements.

As consensus was not being achieved, Brody-Heine suggested that a vote be taken on Option #1, Option #2 and the Option #1 Compromise (specifically includes product take-back and IAQ for consumers).

One stakeholder indicated that they could not vote on the compromise without getting input from their organization.

The co-chairs stated that since it had been agreed that a vote would be taken if consensus could not be reached, a vote would be taken on the two original options. Rostered members on the call voted via survey monkey. The results were:

Total of 54 votes Option 1--26 Option 2--28

The PAR was approved with the Option 2 sentences for Section 5.4. Co-Chairs will forward the PAR to IEEE for their formal approval.

Q) A question was asked—will the Survey Monkey vote be considered an open record for purposes of IEEE?

A) We will ask IEEE.

Subgroup Next Steps A list of subgroup categories was included on the website. If you have not expressed interest in various subgroups, please send it to Pamela immediately.

The Working Group agreed to add two new performance categories/subgroups:  Subgroup #9, Consumables  Subgroup # 10, IAQ For these new two subgroups, send interest in participation/chairing to Pamela by next Monday.

If there is a desire within the subgroups, co-chairs can be selected.

Initial tasks for each subgroup: 1. Review Draft 1680.1 Standard criteria (for your performance category) 2. Review spreadsheet of other ecolabel criteria. In the review of other ecolabel criteria, pay particular attention to EcoLogo standard. a. What is missing? b. What should be considered for inclusion in 1680.2? (not a decision point, just to be considered) c. Revisions/updates to the spreadsheet should be submitted to Pamela by 4/22 3. Develop list of recommended potential common criteria, using the spreadsheet (to be provided) for your performance category that are either: a. From 1680.1 “as is” (without modification) b. From 1680.1 noted with some modification c. New (not currently in 1680.1) 4. Begin developing criteria that has been identified as NOT potential common criteria.

Target for next meeting (March 31) each subgroup bring a list of recommended potential common criteria. After that, the potential common criteria will be set aside, pending direction of the TV Study Group; the 1680.2 Subgroups will concentrate on developing criteria for items that are not considered common.

Q) Do we need to talk about definitions first? Or should we reference the 1680.1 definitions section?

A) We will consider the best path forward and get back to the Working Group.

Face-to-face Meeting A face to face meeting will be held June 8-9, prior to the Board of Advisors meeting in D.C.

Next Steps Next meeting is March 31.