1. 1 Table of Contents PurposePage 2 Scope of servicesPage 3 MethodologyPage 5 FindingsPage 7 ConclusionsPage 16 ConsiderationsPage 18

2. 2 Purpose of study Provide sufficient data about current e- waste diversion infrastructure and residential stockpile volume so that the Board can make informed policy decisions.

3. 3 Scope of services E-waste focused on: televisions computer monitors CPUs Infrastructure focused on: diversion, not disposal or total generation primary processors (resale, refurbish) secondary processors (demanufacture)

4. 4 Scope of services Identify current capacity. Project 2006 diverted e-waste volume. Determine whether future volume of e- waste exceeds current capacity. Estimate the cost of processing the “excess” volume. Identify CRT volume stored in California households.

5. 5 Methodology Processors surveyed to identify processing capacity, volume processed, and cost to process. 2006 volume based on 2 models: historical averages processors’ self-reporting

6. 6 Methodology 2001 capacity and 2006 volume compared to determine gap. Average processing cost applied to gap to calculate cost of processing additional volume. California households surveyed to understand residential stockpiling volume and behavior.

7. 7 Findings: Current capacity

8. 8 Findings: Future volume

9. 9

10. 10 Findings: Gap analysis

11. 11 Findings: Gap analysis 62,000+ Tons

12. 12 Findings: Cost of gap

13. 13 Findings: Total cost

14. 14 Findings: Current stockpile Percent of households that stockpile Televisions: 18.5 percent Computer monitors: 19.4 percent Current stockpile volume 73,600 tons of TVs 47,800 tons of monitors Volume of televisions stockpiled is 8-10 times greater than projected volume to be processed in 2006.

15. 15 Summary Findings Future volume of CRTs exceeds current capacity to process them. Processors predict a smaller increase in processing volume than historical trends would predict. Some processors deterred from handling CRT-containing e-waste.

16. 16 Conclusions Impact of loss of processors is uncertain. Large secondary processors may be the linchpin to capacity. Loss of small processors may mean loss of convenient access to diversion.

17. 17 Conclusions Introducing new outlets for diversion may mitigate loss of local processors. Board may wish to monitor processing market.

18. 18 Considerations Variables that may affect the supply (volume) of diverted e-waste: CRT and CPU sales trends Sales remain high through 2006 Changing technology trends Current trends will not alter e-waste volume in near term Shifts in householders’ behaviors Release of stockpile can have great impact

19. 19 Considerations Variables that may affect the demand (capacity) for diverted e-waste: Processors enter diversion market Atwater federal prison More processors may be identified through reporting requirements

20. 20 Questions? Contact Information Karin Bloomer Tim Lynch Mary Winkley MGT of America, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-3411 http://www.mgtofamerica.com