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

-------