Chemical firm sued by Port of Tacoma says port bought polluted sites ‘AS IS’
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- LLC files counterclaims, cites 2008 Purchase and Sale Agreement 'AS IS' terms.
- Port seeks nearly $10 million in remediation costs for contamination at two sites.
- LLC argues indemnity breach over non‑PQ Corp hazards at the sites.
An LLC representing a Pennsylvania-based chemical company has filed its response and counterclaims against the Port of Tacoma, following the port’s filing of a federal lawsuit in February against the LLC.
The News Tribune in early March reported on the lawsuit, which seeks to recoup millions of dollars in remediation for the port and cleanup of two polluted properties at 1114 Taylor Way and 1202 Taylor Way.
The port acquired the properties in 2008 from PQ Corp. of Pennsylvania, a supplier of silicates, silicas and derivative products. The port contends in its lawsuit that initial investigations of the property before they were purchased “did not reveal the extent of contamination.”
The port contends the LLC is legally responsible, as successor to earlier Philadelphia Quartz entities operating on the site for decades, “who left behind toxic legacies that the port must address,” according to the suit.
PQ, in turn, seeks dismissal of the case and to recover attorneys’ fees and associated legal costs from the port, along with “a declaration that the port is liable for all future remedial action costs, and any other costs incurred to remediate or otherwise address either sodium silicate or hazardous substances on the property not associated with the operations of PQ or its predecessor.”
Attorneys for the LLC contend that the port’s complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” among other issues.
PQ’s responses and counterclaims were filed March 26 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. In the filing, the LLC stated that the port’s lawsuit, “fails to make any mention whatsoever of the fact that, in 2008, the port purchased the property from PQ pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement in Lieu of Condemnation.”
The filing added that under the terms of the agreement, the port was purchasing the property “AS IS, WHERE IS and WITH ALL FAULTS, LATENT OR PATENT.”
Under terms of the agreement, according to the filing, “The port specifically acknowledged that the seller, PQ, ‘makes no representation or warranties regarding the environmental conditions of the property and expressly disclaims the same.’“
The filing also contended that the port “specifically acknowledged” existing reports that identified “several known and potential sources of environmental contamination of the property and surrounding properties by substances identified as hazardous substances under state and/or federal environmental laws.”
“To the extent that the port is seeking to recover remedial action costs from PQ relating to hazardous substances not associated with PQ’s operations, it is breaching its obligation under the PSA to indemnify PQ for such costs,” according to the LLC’s counterclaims.
An attorney for the LLC did not respond to a request for comment from The News Tribune.
Port of Tacoma’s media communications team responded to The News Tribune about PQ’s latest filing in an emailed statement.
It stated that the port “stands by the claims made in our lawsuit and looks forward to the opportunity to recover costs associated with PQ’s legacy contamination of property now owned by the port.”
In March, the port communications team told The News Tribune that the port “seeks to recover nearly $10 million in public funds spent cleaning up contamination” at the sites.
Previous reporting from The News Tribune contributed to this report.
