Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Dicofol position document 2/3.
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Year Published 1984
Report Number EPA 540-9-84-004
Stock Number PB85-134153
OCLC Number 14184086
Subjects Pesticides--Environmental aspects.
Additional Subjects Pesticides ; Environmental impacts ; Regulations ; Reviews ; Labels ; Chemical properties ; Risk ; DDT ; Substitutes ; Chlorine organic compounds ; Residues ; Exposure ; Public health ; Ecology ; Toxicity ; Toxic substances ; Registration ; Dicofol ; Benzene methanol/chloro-chlorophenyl-trichloromethyl ; CAS 115-32-2
Internet Access
Description Access URL
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
EJBD ARCHIVE EPA 540-9-84-004 Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 05/01/2017
ESBD  EP1.2 OPP PD2/3 CPHEA/PESD Library/Corvallis,OR 09/09/2016 DISPERSAL
NTIS  PB85-134153 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 07/22/2019
Collation 1 volume (various pagings) : illustrations ; 28 cm.
This Position Document 2/3 (PD 2/3) describes regulatory actions to reduce the potential adverse environmental effects from registered uses of Dicofol. The proposed action is based on the Agency's determination that uses of Dicofol contaminated with DDT and related compounds (collectively referred to as DDTr) will result in unreasonable adverse effects to nontarget wildlife, especially endangered species. The Guidance Document, issued by the Agency in December, 1983, described the Agency's concerns in detail and also set forth data and labeling requirements for continued registration of Dicofol. A Special Review was initiated by the Agency on March 21, 1984 (49 FR 10569) and invited comments from the registrants as well as from the public. The comments received during the 45-day comment period were from the registrants, environmental groups, and agricultural cooperative agents. All of the comments were reviewed for pertinent information. The Agency's determination of unreasonable adverse effects is based on weighing the risks and benefits of Dicofol use. The Agency's analysis of the benefits of Dicofol use indicated that, although economic impacts would result from cancellation, these impacts did not outweigh the risks. An analysis of the benefits associated with each use reveals that alternative pesticides are available. The Agency proposes to cancel all registrations for Dicofol because the risks of continued use outweigh the benefits.
"October 1984"--Cover. Includes bibliographical references (pages V-1-V-8).