III. RECOMMENDATIONS

B. Methodology

The Research and Technology Work Group developed a rating form that listed R&D areas, subareas, and projects within categories that followed the May 30, 1996, draft R&D Plan and added categories and projects that had been suggested after review of the May 30 draft of the Plan.

Three rating criteria were used. They were surrogates for a number of criteria that had been suggested by Work Group members. The three surrogates were reviewed by Work Group members for their appropriateness. The criteria were: the degree to which the R&D would contribute to characterizing and/or reducing risk from that material of concern and other sources ("risk"), the degree to which the R&D would help metal finishers comply with environmental regulations ("compliance"), and the degree to which the R&D would result in commercial market penetration and adoption by metal finishers of the results ("market acceptance"). Each criterion was rated on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest). The scores were added to reach a single numerical score for each R&D area, subarea, and project.

Rating forms were sent to members of the Metal Finishing Subcommittee, its Research and Technology Work Group, the AESF Research Board and other knowledgeable AESF members, and others who had attended or otherwise expressed interest in the work of the Work Group. Follow-up phone calls were made to increase the response rate.

Responses (i.e., completed rating forms) were received from 27 individuals (see attachment). These individuals represented a good cross-section of the types of input that the Work Group had desired to obtain in the ratings. They included Subcommittee members, Work Group members, recognized industry technical experts, job shop and captive platers, representatives from three EPA Offices, labor, environmental organizations, national laboratories, technical assistance providers, POTW operators, and other Federal agencies.