Hooker Chemical Corporation's full-page newspaper ad on Love Canal: 'A hard look at the facts'

Penelope D. Ploughman Love Canal Collection

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.

Advertising, Newspaper

Mass media and propaganda

A full-page black-and-white newspaper-style advertisement issued by Hooker Chemical, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation. The page is headed in bold with “A HARD LOOK AT THE FACTS.” It reprints a letter from Hooker’s president defending the company’s conduct related to chemical waste disposal. The text argues that the company was not careless, outlines compliance with environmental regulations, and reaffirms commitments to safety and transparency. At the bottom is the Hooker Chemical logo and a note of its affiliation with Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

Ploughman, Penelope, 1955-

State University of New York at Buffalo

University Archives

1979-09-05

image/jpeg

Image

Still Image

MS100.499

LIB-UA003

1/28/2009

Slides

A HARD LOOK AT THE FACTS

During the past year, some of the nation’s media have carried stories about the environmental problems at Hooker Chemical Company plants in various states. We wish to correct certain errors in these articles. Hooker’s president wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times concerning statements in two recent articles. We publish this letter for those who did not see it when it was published in the Saturday, August 25th edition.

Letter: on Chemical Wastes

Hooker Was Not 'Careless'

To the Editor:

In answering your Aug. 9 editorial "Trying to be Fair About Poison," which followed the articles by Donald G. McNeil, Jr. about environmental problems at the Hooker Chemical Company, I am faced with dealing with what I can only assume is a serious misunderstanding on the part of the editorial writing of the facts and issues involved. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding has led the writer to make allegations about the conduct of our company that in some cases are plain wrong and in others unfair, to say the least.

Space would not permit a point-by-point rebuttal of all the charges made in both the editorial and the McNeil articles, but let me deal with a few of the issues raised in the editorial that bear upon the point I am making.

You suggest that our disposal practices at the Love Canal in the 1950s were "carless." They were not. They were considered "state-of-the-art" at the time. Furthermore, Hooker deeded the property to the school board for $1 over 25 years ago with the warning in the deed that chemicals were buried there and that Hooker would not be responsible for any injuries which might occur.

You say Hooker knew for yeas that wastes were escaping from the Love Canal. Not so. You have confused some isolated incidents in the late 1950s, when some chemicals were uncovered after disturbance of the clay cap during ill-advised road construction, with the later and more serious issue of chemical migration, which we have reason to believe was due to the disturbance of the surface.

A few children playing in the area were slightly burned by some of the chemicals. We investigated and advised the school board, which owned the property, to take precautionary measures so that there would be no further incidents.

There was no evidence of chemicals seeping into homes back then; there wasn't any evidence of that happening until 1976.

You say Hooker "top management" knowingly authorized pollution violations in its White Spring, Fla. facility. The charge is based on supposition and hardly jibes with Hooker top management's actions. When they learned of this situation, the unit was shut down immediately, and the violation was voluntarily reported to Federal and state authorities. The unit was restarted only after the company was certain its operation would be in full environmental compliance.

I think you readers will agree, on the basis of the illustrative points I have raised, that we have reason to be concerned about the accuracy of your editorial. I am not saying that Hooker Chemical should not be concerned about the effects of some of its chemical disposal practices in the past, but I would like to point out that we believe our current waste disposal practices and our new management's attitude toward environmental responsibility are at least as good as anyone else's in industry. These are not just words. This year alone Hooker has more than 240 employees devoted ot environmental, health, and safety activities and will spend in excess of $40 million for environmental protection.

Donald L. Baeder
President
Hooker Chemical Company
Houston, Aug. 10, 1979

Our plants are complying or constructing the necessary facilities to comply with state and federal regulations and requirements. Hooker Chemical today has an experienced management team and a group of executives recruited from leaders in industry. We are working diligently, cooperating fully with appropriate agencies. We are committing our best efforts to make our company a future leader in environmental action.

Zoltan Merszei, Occidental Petroleum Corporation’s President and Chief Operating Officer, with more than thirty years experience as a top executive with Dow Chemical Company, stated that “the practices of all industry must yield to the new scientific knowledge of environmental protection. We cannot judge yesterday's practices by today's rules. I will see to it that Hooker lives up to the highest environmental standards." Donald L. Baeder, President and Chief Operating Office of Hooker says that the company's policy is "to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law and where helpful, in the spirit of a good neighbor, to go beyond the requirements of the law."

As stated in the letter reproduced above: “These are not just words. This year alone Hooker has more than 140 employees devoted to environmental, health and safety activities and will spend in excess of $40 million for environmental protection.”

HOOKER CHEMICAL
A subsidiary of
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION