EPA-820-N-15-002
Fall 2015
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Newsletter
FSTRAG
FEDERAL-STATE TOXICOLOGY RISK ANALYSIS COMMITTEE
What Is FSTRAC?
In 1985, Drs. Joseph Cotruvo, Edward Ohanian, and Penny Fenner-Crisp of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
started FSTRAC to build a better relationship with states and tribes to exchange research priorities and
results, policy concerns regarding water-related human health risk assessment, and technical information.
FSTRAC is made up of representatives from state and tribal health and environmental agencies and EPA
Headquarters and Regional personnel. As described on the EPA FSTRAC Web page (http://www2.epa.
gov/water-research/basic-information-fstrac), FSTRAC is an integral part of EPA's communication
strategy with states and tribes. FSTRAC fosters cooperation, consistency, and an understanding of EPA's
and different states' and tribe's goals and problems in human health risk assessment. It allows states, tribes
and the federal government to work together on issues related to the development and implementation of
regulations and criteria under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act.
Recent Webinars
FSTRAC holds several Webinars each year to share
information through presentations and discussions
regarding human health risk analysis and the water
medium of exposure.
April 2015 FSTRAC Webinar
EPA held a FSTRAC Webinar in April 2015 during
which the following topics were discussed:
Update on Criteria Development (presented by Ms. Elizabeth
[Betsy] Behl, OW/EPA): Ms. Behl provided an overview
of EPA Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division's new addition to
the management team, as well as staff changes, 2014
accomplishments, and 2015 work plan. Ms. Behl
provided details about the 2014 accomplishments for
human health (e.g., completed peer review of perfluo-
rooctanoic acid [PFOA] and perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) draft health effects documents; issued updated
draft human health criteria for 94 chemicals for
which public comments were received for 90-days,
started bacteriophage criteria development), aquatic
life criteria (e.g., selenium public comments and peer
review, Endangered Species Act work, metals, flow
and plastics white papers), and nutrients (e.g., numeric
nutrient criteria workshops in 10 regions, U.S. EPA
Expert Workshop Proceedings for nutrient enrich-
ment indicators in streams, relationships between
nutrients and harmful algal blooms). She also dis-
cussed 2015 priorities for human health (e.g., updated
human health criteria for 94 chemicals, Health
Advisories for microcystin and cylindrospermopsin),
aquatic life criteria (e.g., selenium criteria, flow white
paper), and nutrients (e.g., webinars on numeric nutri-
ent criteria, updated fact sheet on support for dual
nutrient criteria approach).
Strontium Health Effects (presented by Joyce Donohue, OW/
EPA): Dr. Donohue discussed strontium health effects,
including detailed information on toxicokinetics. She
The purpose of this newsletter is to keep Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis Committee (FSTRAC)
members up-to-date on current developments in toxicology, risk analysis, and water quality criteria and standards.
This newsletter also provides information on recent FSTRAC webinars and upcoming events. Please share this
newsletter with anyone you think might be interested in these topics. If you are interested in joining FSTRAC,
please contact the FSTRAC Chair, Dr. Shamima Akhter (Akhter.Shamima@epa.gov).
-------
discussed an epidemiology study of increased
rickets performed in Turkey and another study per-
formed for staining of tooth enamel in Wisconsin.
Dr. Donohue presented animal data from criti-
cal studies and described how the study used to
develop the 2014 EPA Office of Water value (i.e.,
Marie et al. 1985) differed from the study which
was used to develop the 1992 EPA Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) value (Storey 1961). She
presented the existing Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3) monitoring data
for strontium in ground water and surface water
and noted that only 39 percent of all systems have
submitted complete results. Dr. Donohue noted
that next steps include waiting for the completion
of UCMR monitoring and analysis of the data,
collecting the data needed to establish the relative
source contribution, and evaluating treatment
options for efficacy and costs.
Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Source and
Treated Drinking Water (presented by Susan Glassmeyer,
ORD/EPA): Dr. Glassmeyer provided information
on contaminants of emerging concern (CECs)
and their relationship to the water cycle. She also
presented information on her current research
on CECs in source and treated drinking water,
including frequency of occurrence of CECs,
concentration ranges, interesting anecdotes,
and health implications. She noted that paired
source and treated drinking water samples from
25 locations were analyzed for 247 chemical and
microbial constituents. Dr. Glassmeyer mentioned
that out of the 247 analytes measured, 99 were
never detected in the source water samples and
127 were never detected in the treated drinking
water samples. She noted that most of the con-
centrations of detected organic chemicals were
<10 ng/L. She further noted that the numbers of
Pharmaceuticals and anthropogenic waste indica-
tors qualitatively measured in samples was quite
variable, while the perfluorinated compounds and
inorganics varied little.
West Virginia American Water's Response to Freedom
Industries Chemical Spill (presented by Jeffrey Mclntyre,
West Virginia American Water): Mr. Mclntyre pre-
sented information on West Virginia American
Water's Response to the Freedom Industries
chemical spill. He noted that on January 9, 2014,
an undetermined amount of 4-methylcyclohex-
anemethanol (MCHM) leaked into the Elk River
from a storage tank at a facility owned by Freedom
Industries. West Virginia American Water
was informed of the spill by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection. Mr.
Mclntrye noted that an interagency team of federal
and state agencies, as well as Kanawha County,
was assembled to manage the spill response. He
mentioned that they sampled, tested, and flushed
the system until MCHM and its associated odor
were no longer detected in the samples.
Information from States Developing Guidance for Specific Chemicals
Criteria Values
Minnesota Department of Health
The Minnesota Department of Health's
Contaminants of Emerging Concern program
recently published health-based water guidance
forp-nonylphenol (Toxicological Summary
[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/
guidance/gw/nonylphsumm.pdf] and Info Sheet
[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/
guidance/gw/nonylphinfo.pdf]). Nonylphenol and
related compounds have been detected recently
in waters that could be used as drinking water
sources in Minnesota, and toxicological crite-
ria for what these levels could mean regarding
health effects were lacking. A major focus of the
Contaminants of Emerging Concern program,
beyond evaluating chemical toxicity for water
guidance development, is to effectively commu-
nicate in plain language to a wide audience the
"so what" message following a chemical review.
Based on occurrence information gathered in
water sources thus far, the levels present are not
expected to cause harm. Overall, the review of
nonylphenol presented many challenges and
opportunities related to evaluation of a chemical
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
which exists as a complex mixture with over 200
potential isomers, and incorporation of benchmark
dose analysis into our review process.
California Environmental Protection Agency
In February 2015 the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published an updated
public health goal (PHG) of 1 part-per-billion (ppb)
for perchlorate in drinking water. The new goal
updates the previous PHG for perchlorate, which was
set at 6 ppb in 2004. A PHG is not an enforceable reg-
ulatory standard. Its purpose is to provide scientific
guidance to the State Water Resources Control Board's
Division of Drinking Water in reviewing the existing
state drinking water standard, or maximum contami-
nant level (MCL), which is set at 6 ppb for perchlorate.
There is no current federal standard for perchlorate in
drinking water. The updated PHG is lower than the
previous goal because it incorporates new research
about the effects of perchlorate on infants and incor-
porates new data on how much water infants consume
per kilogram of body weight. It also considers infants'
intake of perchlorate from infant formula recon-
stituted with tap water. Like the previous PHG, the
updated PHG takes into account exposure from all
sources of perchlorate including food. The lowering of
the PHG does not suggest any food is unsafe or that
the public should change its dietary habits.
In developing the PHG for perchlorate, OEHHA's
approach to determine an acceptable daily dose that
serves as the basis for the PHG followed that used by
the National Academy of Sciences1 to develop its refer-
ence dose in several key areas:
1. Both OEHHA and NAS identified the human
study by Greer and colleagues2 as the critical study
for evaluating the effects of perchlorate.
1 NAS. 2005. Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion.
Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate
Ingestion, National Research Council, Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=11202#toc
2 Greer M.A., G. Goodman, R.C. Pleus, and S.E. Greer.
2002. Health effects assessment for environmental perchlorate
contamination: the dose response for inhibition of thyroidal
radioiodine uptake in humans. Environ Health Perspect
110(9):927-937.
2. Both OEHHA and NAS chose iodide uptake inhi-
bition in the Greer et al. study as the key effect on
which to base their calculations.
3. Both OEHHA and NAS noted that the subjects in
the Greer et al. study were healthy adults and con-
cluded that some people may be more susceptible
to perchlorate than these healthy adult subjects.
For this reason, both OEHHA and NAS applied
an uncertainty factor of 10 to calculate a dose that
would address inter-individual variability among
humans and be protective of those who are likely to
be sensitive to the effects of perchlorate.
4. Both OEHHA and NAS identified the same pop-
ulations likely to be more sensitive to perchlorate
exposure: fetuses, preterm newborns, infants,
developing children, pregnant women, people who
have compromised thyroid function resulting from
conditions that reduce thyroid hormone produc-
tion, and people who are iodine-deficient.
There is only one substantive difference between the
OEHHA and NAS analyses to determine an accept-
able daily dose (reference dose in NAS parlance).
The NAS used the no-observed-effect level (NOEL)
approach. They determined that the NOEL was 0.007
mg/kg-day, the highest dose in the Greer et al. study
that was not associated with a statistically significant
response. OEHHA used the Benchmark Dose (BMD)
approach and calculated a point of departure of 0.0037
mg/kg-day. The BMD method is a statistical method
that is now widely recognized as a better approach
because it incorporates more dose-response informa-
tion from the study than the NOEL method.3'4
Technical Information
The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute
(DWQI), a legislatively established advisory body
to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
3 NAS. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk
Assessment. Committee on Improving Risk Assessment
Practices Used by the U.S. EPA. National Research Council,
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. http://www.
nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209
4 U.S. EPA. 2012. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance.
Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/
benchmarkdose.htm
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
Protection (NJDEP), has finalized a recommendation
to the Commissioner of NJDEP of an MCL for
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) of 0.013 ng/L
(13 ng/L). The recommendation is supported by
technical documents on health effects/risk assessment,
analytical limitation (Practical Quantitation Level;
PQL), and drinking water treatment removal.
The recommendation and supporting technical
documents are posted on the DWQI website at http://
www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/g_boards_dwqi.html
under the heading Recommendations for Maximum
Contaminant Levels.
Risk Assessment Issues
Drinking Water
EPA Has Published Health Advisories and
Technical Support Documents for the
Cyanobacterial Toxins
EPA posted drinking water health advisories (HAs) for
the cyanobacterial toxins, microcystins and cylindros-
permopsin. The advisories describe concentrations
of the two algal toxins in drinking water at or below
which adverse human health effects are not anticipated
to occur over a ten-day exposure period. Based on the
reported occurrence, toxicology, and epidemiology
data, EPA found there were adequate data to develop
HAs for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin, but
inadequate data to develop an HA for anatoxin-a.
EPA also released Health Effects Support Documents
(HESDs) for three cyanobacterial toxins of concern:
microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin-a.
These three cyanotoxins were identified on EPA's
most recent Candidate Contaminant List for poten-
tial regulation in drinking water. HESDs describe
the health effects basis for the development of HAs.
These cyanotoxin HESDs were also designed to pro-
vide information and a framework that public water
systems and others can consider using to inform their
decisions on managing risks from cyanotoxins to
drinking water.
For more information on the two cyanobacterial toxin
health advisories, including the health effects support
documents, visit EPA's health advisory website: http://
water.epa.gov/drink/standards/hascience.cfm
For more information on the support docu-
ment for managing cyanotoxins in drinking
water, visit EPA's CyanoHABs website:
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/
guidelines-and-recommendations
Clean Water
Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria:
2015 Update
EPA published final updated ambient water quality
criteria for the protection of human health for 94
chemical pollutants. These updated recommendations
reflect the latest scientific information and EPA poli-
cies, including updated body weight, drinking water
consumption rate, fish consumption rate, bioaccu-
mulation factors, health toxicity values, and relative
source contributions. EPA accepted written scientific
views from the public from May to August 2014 on
the draft updated human health criteria and has
published responses to those comments. EPA water
quality criteria serve as recommendations to states
and tribes authorized to establish water quality stan-
dards under the Clean Water Act.
For more information on EPA's Human Health
Ambient Water Quality Criteria 2015 update, visit:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/
criteria/current/loader.cfm?csModule=security/
getfile&PageID=717763
Draft Aquatic Life Chronic Criterion for Selenium
in Freshwater
In July 2015, EPA released a draft updated national
recommended aquatic life criterion for the pollutant
selenium. The public is able to provide scientific views
on the draft document until September 25,2015.
The draft criterion document is a revision of EPA's
2014 External Peer Review Draft Freshwater chronic
aquatic life criterion for selenium. It reflects the latest
scientific information, which indicates that selenium
toxicity to aquatic life is primarily driven by organisms
consuming selenium-contaminated food rather than
by direct exposure to selenium dissolved in water.
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
The draft criterion has four parts, including two fish
tissue-based and two water column-based elements.
Once finalized, EPA's water quality criterion for
selenium will provide recommendations to states and
tribes authorized to establish water quality standards
under the Clean Water Act.
For more information on EPA's water quality criterion
for selenium, visit http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/selenium/
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Information
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR) program to collect data for contami-
nants suspected to be present in drinking water, but
that do not have health-based standards set under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Every five years EPA
develops a new list of UCMR contaminants, largely
based on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL).
The third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 3) was published in the Federal Register
on May 2, 2012. UCMR 3 requires monitoring for
30 contaminants: 28 chemicals and 2 viruses. The
latest UCMR 3 data summary, reflecting results
reported through June 1, 2015, was posted to http://
water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.
cfm#ucmr2013.
This dataset represents the seventh release of analyti-
cal results for UCMR3. Updates occur approximately
quarterly and EPA anticipates that additional refer-
ence material will be made available to assist with the
assessment of the UCMR 3 data. Please keep in mind
that this dataset is not complete. UCMR 3 monitoring
occurs through December 2015, and data are expected
to be reported to EPA through the summer of 2016.
These results are subject to change following further
review by the analytical laboratory, the public water
system, the State and EPA.
Treatability Issues for Contaminants
New Jersey Drinking Water Quality
Institute
The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute
(NJDWQI) is an advisory body to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
Membership includes drinking water purveyors,
representatives from academia, and the members of the
public with environmental health background, as well as
scientists from NJDEP and the NJ Department of Health.
The NJDWQI Treatment Subcommittee recently
developed a Recommendation on Perfluorinated
Compound Treatment Options for Drinking
Water5. In this document, the NJDWQI Treatment
5 New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (NJDWQI)
Treatment Subcommittee. 2015. Recommendation on
Perfluorinated Compound Treatment Options for Drinking
Water. New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute
Treatment Subcommittee, New Jersey, http://www.nj.gov/dep/
watersupply/pdf/pfna-pfc-treatment.pdf
Subcommittee noted that according to published liter-
ature, long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs),
such as perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorooc-
tanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS), can be successfully removed using treatment
techniques, such as activated carbon, membrane filtra-
tion, anion exchange, and advanced oxidation. These
treatment techniques are described in further detail
in the Recommendation on Perfluorinated Compound
Treatment Options for Drinking Water document. It
was noted that these treatment techniques might not
be effective in removing all PFCs; for example, short-
chain PFCs are not effectively removed by some of
these techniques.
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
The NJDWQI Treatment Subcommittee noted that
several factors6 should be evaluated when selecting
appropriate treatment option(s), including initial
concentration of PFCs, the background organic and
metal concentration, and available detention time
and other site-specific conditions. Additional factors
include operation and maintenance costs, the abil-
ity to address more than one contaminant with one
treatment option, and waste disposal. To select the
most cost effective treatment process(es), a case-by-
case evaluation (i.e., bench and/or pilot-scale studies)
is required. The NJDWQI treatment subcommittee
recommends that bench and/or pilot studies should
be designed to aid in the establishment of the required
design parameters specific to the treatment processes
being evaluated. The NJDWQI treatment subcommit-
tee further noted that conceptual level design should
be used to develop reasonable cost estimates for a full
life-cycle cost analysis to include capital, operation
and maintenance costs. The full life-cycle cost analysis
can be utilized to define the best option specific to an
individual water system.
The NJDWQI Treatment Subcommittee found that
the ability of several treatment options to remove
PFNA, PFOA, or PFOS is not expected to be a lim-
iting factor in the development of a recommended
New Jersey Maximum Contaminant Level for PFNA,
PFOA, and PFOS.
Publications Pertinent to Drinking Water Issues
Murphy, E.A., G.B. Post, B.T. Buckley, R.L. Lippincott,
and M.G. Robson. 2012. Future challenges to
protecting public health from drinking water
contaminants. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 33:209-224.
Post, G.B., P.O. Cohn, and K.R. Cooper. 2012.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an emerging
drinking water contaminant: a critical review of
recent literature. Environ. Res. 116:93-117.
Post, G.B., J.B. Louis, K.R. Cooper, B.J. Boros-Russo,
and R.L. Lippincott. 2009. Occurrence and potential
significance of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
detected in New Jersey public drinking water
systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43:4547-4554.
Post, G.B., J.B. Louis, R.L. Lippincott, and N.A.
Procopio. 2013. Occurrence of perfluorinated
chemicals in raw water from New Jersey public
drinking water systems. Environ. Sci. Technol.
47(23):13266-13275.
Villanueva C.M., M. Kogevinas, S. Cordier, M.R.
Templeton, R. Vermeulen, J.R. Nuckols, M.J.
Nieuwenhuijsen, and P. Levallois. 2014. Assessing
exposure and health consequences of chemicals
in drinking water: current state of knowledge
and research needs. Environ Health Perspect.
122:213-221.
Upcoming Events and Conferences
EPA IRIS Epigenetics and Cumulative Risk
Assessment Workshop
EPA IRIS will be holding a workshop on Epigenetics
and Cumulative Risk Assessment on September 2-3,
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Emerging
Contaminants - Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Potomac Yards, Arlington, Virginia, http://www2.epa.
gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/factsheet_
contaminant_pfos_pfoa_march2014.pdf
2015, at the EPA Conference Center at 2777 South
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The workshop
will also be available by webinar/teleconference.
Additional information is provided on the workshop
website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.
cfm?deid=308271
Fall 2015 FSTRACWebinar
The fall FSTRAC Webinar (http://www2.epa.
gov/water-research/upcoming-activities-fstrac) is
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
scheduled for Wednesday, September 9, 2015, from
12:00 to 2:30 p.m., Eastern time. Below is the draft
agenda for the webinar, with tentative timeframes
(note that the presentation times might change
slightly from the times provided below during the
actual webinar).
1. EPA Office of Water/Office of Science and
Technology Updates - Betsy Behl, Office of Water,
USEPA (12:00-12:15 p.m.)
2. EPA's Draft Health Effects Documents
for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) -
Joyce Donohue, Office of Water, USEPA
(12:15-12:45 p.m.)
3. Derivation of Methodology and Screening Water
Concentrations for -120 Pharmaceuticals -
Ashley Suchomel, Minnesota Department of
Health (12:45-1:15 p.m.)
4. EPA Health Advisories to Protect Americans
from Algal Toxins in Drinking Water - Lesley
D'Anglada, Office of Water, USEPA (1:15-1:45 p.m.)
5. A Cross-Sectional Study on Low-Level Exposure
to Manganese from Drinking Water in New
Brunswick and Children's Neurobehavioral
Function - Maryse Bouchard, University of
Montreal (1:45-2:15 p.m.)
6. State Hot Topics (2:15-2:30 p.m.)
If you are interested in joining the mailing list for
FSTRAC to receive information about the FSTRAC
Webinars and other relevant information, please
contact the contractor for EPA's FSTRAC meetings
(susan.lanberg@tetratech.com).
Invited Expert Meeting on Revising U.S.
EPA's Guidelines for Deriving Aquatic Life
Criteria
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology is hosting an invited expert meeting to
gather information regarding the state of the sci-
ence for ecological risk assessment as it pertains to
revising the 1985 Guidelines (Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses,
Stephan et al. 1985) used to derive National Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for the protection of aquatic
life. EPA will consider information presented regard-
ing new and alternative methods for deriving aquatic
life criteria to inform revision of EPA's existing
guidance using the newest, most appropriate sci-
ence available. The meeting will be held on Monday,
September 14-Wednesday, September 16, 2015, at
the Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis
Highway Arlington, VA 22202.
To reserve a seat for this meeting, click on the
following link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/
invited-expert-meeting-on-revising-us-epas-guide-
lines-for-deriving-aquatic-life-criteria-tick-
ets-16122090607
The meeting agenda and abstracts from invited
experts are provided on the meeting website: http://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/
aqlife/guidelines.cfm
The Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Coliphage - 2015 Stakeholder Webinar
EPA will provide an update on the development of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for coli-
phage, a viral indicator, via a webinar on Thursday,
October 15, 2015 from 2:00-3:00 p.m. The link to
the coliphage webinar site is https://epa.connectso-
lutions.com/coliphage/. This public webinar event is
designed to be a forum for interested stakeholders to
ask questions about the development of EPA's AWQC
for coliphage and to provide topics/science questions
for consideration in the upcoming Experts Science
Workshop.
SETAC North America Annual Meeting
SETAC will be holding its annual North America
meeting on November 1-5, 2015, in Salt Lake
City, Utah. Additional information is pro-
vided on the SETAC Website: http://www.setac.
org/?page=AnnualMeetings
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
-------
Additional EPA IRIS Upcoming Events
Additional EPA IRIS upcoming public workshops on
issues in risk assessment include:
• Advancing Systematic Review -
December 16-17, 2015
• Temporal Exposure Issues for Environmental
Pollutants: Health Effects and Methodologies for
Estimating Risk - January 27-29, 2016
• Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty
in Human Health Risk Assessment - Early 2016
Additional information is provided on the IRIS
workshop website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=307738
SOT, 55th Annual Meeting
SOT will be holding its 55th annual meeting on
March 13-17, 2016, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Additional information is provided on the SOT
Website: http://www.toxicology.org/events/am/
am2016/registration.asp#
FSTRAC Newsletter
Fall 2015
------- |