Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 3. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Credit Risk In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits. Legal Proceedings We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, we had accrued $12,231,000 and $12,311,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We have recorded credits aggregating $45,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018, and provisions aggregating $1,044,000, for environmental litigation accruals for the year ended December 31, 2017, for certain of these matters. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, and our lawsuit with the State of New York pertaining to a property formerly owned by us in Uniondale, New York, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we received $147,000 and $6,381,000, respectively, for former legal litigation settlements. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for alleged natural resource damages resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the Lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provides, among other things, that the named recipients must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which was sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. There has been no material activity and/or communications by the NJDEP with respect to the Directive since early after its issuance. In May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River. Most of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). The CPG agreed to an interim allocation formula for purposes of allocating the costs to complete the RI/FS among its members, with the understanding that this agreed-upon allocation formula is not binding on the parties in terms of any potential liability for the costs to remediate the Lower Passaic River. The CPG submitted to the EPA its draft RI/FS in 2015. The draft RI/FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the entire 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, and provides that the cost estimate for the preferred remedial action presented therein is in the range of approximately $483,000,000 to $725,000,000. The EPA has provided comments to the draft RI/FS, which led to discussions between the CPG and the EPA regarding an alternative approach to completing the RI/FS, including various adaptive management scenarios focusing on source control interim remedies for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River. These discussions between the CPG and the EPA are ongoing. In addition to the RI/FS activities, other actions relating to the investigation and/or remediation of the Lower Passaic River have proceeded as follows. First, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) effective June 18, 2012, to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”) directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8-miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS was subject to public comments and objections, and on March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the lower 8-miles selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1,380,000,000. On March 31, 2016, we and more than 100 other potentially responsible parties received from the EPA a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”), which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” potentially responsible parties for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the potentially responsible parties and other parties not yet identified as potentially responsible parties will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On October 5, 2016, the EPA announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Occidental which requires that Occidental perform the remedial design (which is expected to take four years to complete) for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. On June 16, 2016, Maxus Energy Corporation and Tierra Solutions, Inc., who have contractual liability to Occidental for Occidental’s potential liability related to the Lower Passaic River, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF SA, Maxus and Tierra’s corporate parent, sought bankruptcy approval of a settlement under which YPF would pay $130,000,000 to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for a release in favor of Maxus, Tierra, YPF and YPF’s affiliates of Maxus and Tierra’s contractual environmental liability to Occidental. We and the CPG filed proofs of claims for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River. On April 19, 2017, Maxus, Tierra and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, of which the CPG is a member, filed an Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation (the “Chapter 11 Plan”) in the Chapter 11 proceedings, which has been confirmed by order of the bankruptcy court, having an effective date of July 14, 2017 (the “Effective Date”). The Chapter 11 Plan provides for, among other things, the creation of a Liquidating Trust to liquidate and distribute from available assets certain allowed claims pursuant to the procedures set forth therein. Under the terms of the Chapter 11 Plan, the CPG’s proof of claim, which includes past costs incurred in the performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work, is classified as an Allowed Class 4 Claim in the approximate amount of $14,300,000. To the extent that the CPG receives any distributions from the Liquidating Trust with respect to its Allowed Class 4 Claim, we would be entitled to seek reimbursement of our pro-rata share of said distribution for past costs we incurred with respect to performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work. The Chapter 11 Plan also provides for a Mutual Contribution Release Agreement under which claims for contribution relating to liabilities associated with the Lower Passaic River and incurred prior to the Effective Date are mutually released by and among the parties identified therein. We are one of 59 parties (the “Released Parties”) that entered into the Mutual Contribution Release Agreement, pursuant to which (i) the Debtors release the Released Parties from any contribution claim they may have, (ii) Occidental releases the Released Parties for the amounts itemized in Occidental’s Class 4 Claim, and (iii) the Released Parties release the Debtors and Occidental for the amounts itemized in the CPG’s Class 4 Claim. The Mutual Contribution Release Agreement does not reduce or affect the CPG’s right to receive distributions from the Liquidating Trust on account of the CPG’s Class 4 Claim or our pro-rata share of any such distributions, nor does it affect our right to assert any future claims against Occidental for costs that we may incur related to the remediation of the Lower Passaic River after the Effective Date. By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with 20 potentially responsible parties to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. The letter also stated that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other potentially responsible parties for negotiation of cash out settlements to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. We were not included in the initial group of 20 parties identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. In January 2018, the EPA published a notice of its intent to enter into a final settlement agreement with 15 of the identified 20 parties to resolve their respective alleged liability for the ROD work, each for a payment to the EPA in the amount of $280,600. The EPA has also been engaged in discussions, in which we are participating, with the remaining recipients of the Notice regarding a proposed framework for an allocation process that will lead to offers of cash-out settlements to certain additional parties and a consent decree in which parties that are not offered a cash-out settlement will agree to perform the lower 8-mile remedial action. The EPA-commenced allocation process was scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but is likely to be extended. On June 30, 2018, Occidental filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for its alleged expenses with respect to the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Passaic River. The complaint lists over 120 defendants, including us, many of which were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. We do not know whether this new complaint will impact the EPA’s allocation process or the ultimate outcome of the matter. We intend to defend the claims consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings. Many uncertainties remain regarding how the EPA intends to implement the ROD. We anticipate that performance of the EPA’s selected remedy will be subject to future negotiations, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform remedial action contemplated by either the ROD or RI/FS and do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with MTBE involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gasoline station properties from which the releases occurred. The majority of the named defendants have already settled their cases with the State of New Jersey. A portion of the case (“bellwether” trials) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for pre-trial proceedings and trial, although a trial date has not yet been set. We continue to engage in settlement negotiations and a dialogue with the plaintiffs’ counsel to educate them on the unique role of the Company and our business as compared to other defendants in the litigation. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe that it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount accrued with certainty for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings in excess of the amounts accrued as of December 31, 2018, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law. The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations intended to bolster their claims against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us. This motion is pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code. On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It is unclear whether the matter will ultimately be removed to the MTBE MDL proceedings or remain in federal court in Maryland. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Uniondale, New York Litigation In September 2004, the State of New York commenced an action against us, United Gas Corp., Costa Gas Station, Inc., Vincent Costa, The Ingraham Bedell Corporation, Richard Berger and Exxon Mobil Corporation in New York Supreme Court in Albany County seeking recovery for reimbursement of investigation and remediation costs claimed to have been incurred by the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund relating to contamination it alleges emanated from various gasoline station properties located in the same vicinity in Uniondale, New York, including a site formerly owned by us and at which a petroleum release and cleanup occurred. The complaint also seeks future costs for remediation, as well as interest and penalties. We have served an answer to the complaint denying responsibility. In 2007, the State of New York commenced action against Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and related parties, in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County seeking basically the same relief sought in the action involving us. We have also filed a third-party complaint against Hess Corporation, Sprague Operating Resources LLC (successor to RAD Energy Corp.), Service Station Installation of NY, Inc., and certain individual defendants based on alleged contribution to the contamination that is the subject of the State’s claims arising from a petroleum discharge at a gasoline station up-gradient from the site formerly owned by us. In 2016, the various actions filed by the State of New York and our third-party actions were consolidated for discovery proceedings and trial. Discovery in this case is in later stages and, as it nears completion, a schedule for trial will be established. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case, in excess of the amounts accrued, as of December 31, 2018, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 3. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Risk

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, we had accrued $12,231,000 and $12,311,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We have recorded credits aggregating $45,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018, and provisions aggregating $1,044,000, for environmental litigation accruals for the year ended December 31, 2017, for certain of these matters. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, and our lawsuit with the State of New York pertaining to a property formerly owned by us in Uniondale, New York, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we received $147,000 and $6,381,000, respectively, for former legal litigation settlements.

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for alleged natural resource damages resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the Lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provides, among other things, that the named recipients must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which was sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. There has been no material activity and/or communications by the NJDEP with respect to the Directive since early after its issuance.

In May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River. Most of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). The CPG agreed to an interim allocation formula for purposes of allocating the costs to complete the RI/FS among its members, with the understanding that this agreed-upon allocation formula is not binding on the parties in terms of any potential liability for the costs to remediate the Lower Passaic River. The CPG submitted to the EPA its draft RI/FS in 2015. The draft RI/FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the entire 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, and provides that the cost estimate for the preferred remedial action presented therein is in the range of approximately $483,000,000 to $725,000,000. The EPA has provided comments to the draft RI/FS, which led to discussions between the CPG and the EPA regarding an alternative approach to completing the RI/FS, including various adaptive management scenarios focusing on source control interim remedies for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River. These discussions between the CPG and the EPA are ongoing.

In addition to the RI/FS activities, other actions relating to the investigation and/or remediation of the Lower Passaic River have proceeded as follows. First, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) effective June 18, 2012, to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”) directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8-miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS was subject to public comments and objections, and on March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the lower 8-miles selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1,380,000,000. On March 31, 2016, we and more than 100 other potentially responsible parties received from the EPA a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”), which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” potentially responsible parties for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the potentially responsible parties and other parties not yet identified as potentially responsible parties will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On October 5, 2016, the EPA announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Occidental which requires that Occidental perform the remedial design (which is expected to take four years to complete) for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River.

On June 16, 2016, Maxus Energy Corporation and Tierra Solutions, Inc., who have contractual liability to Occidental for Occidental’s potential liability related to the Lower Passaic River, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF SA, Maxus and Tierra’s corporate parent, sought bankruptcy approval of a settlement under which YPF would pay $130,000,000 to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for a release in favor of Maxus, Tierra, YPF and YPF’s affiliates of Maxus and Tierra’s contractual environmental liability to Occidental. We and the CPG filed proofs of claims for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River.

On April 19, 2017, Maxus, Tierra and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, of which the CPG is a member, filed an Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation (the “Chapter 11 Plan”) in the Chapter 11 proceedings, which has been confirmed by order of the bankruptcy court, having an effective date of July 14, 2017 (the “Effective Date”). The Chapter 11 Plan provides for, among other things, the creation of a Liquidating Trust to liquidate and distribute from available assets certain allowed claims pursuant to the procedures set forth therein. Under the terms of the Chapter 11 Plan, the CPG’s proof of claim, which includes past costs incurred in the performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work, is classified as an Allowed Class 4 Claim in the approximate amount of $14,300,000. To the extent that the CPG receives any distributions from the Liquidating Trust with respect to its Allowed Class 4 Claim, we would be entitled to seek reimbursement of our pro-rata share of said distribution for past costs we incurred with respect to performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work. The Chapter 11 Plan also provides for a Mutual Contribution Release Agreement under which claims for contribution relating to liabilities associated with the Lower Passaic River and incurred prior to the Effective Date are mutually released by and among the parties identified therein. We are one of 59 parties (the “Released Parties”) that entered into the Mutual Contribution Release Agreement, pursuant to which (i) the Debtors release the Released Parties from any contribution claim they may have, (ii) Occidental releases the Released Parties for the amounts itemized in Occidental’s Class 4 Claim, and (iii) the Released Parties release the Debtors and Occidental for the amounts itemized in the CPG’s Class 4 Claim. The Mutual Contribution Release Agreement does not reduce or affect the CPG’s right to receive distributions from the Liquidating Trust on account of the CPG’s Class 4 Claim or our pro-rata share of any such distributions, nor does it affect our right to assert any future claims against Occidental for costs that we may incur related to the remediation of the Lower Passaic River after the Effective Date.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with 20 potentially responsible parties to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. The letter also stated that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other potentially responsible parties for negotiation of cash out settlements to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. We were not included in the initial group of 20 parties identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. In January 2018, the EPA published a notice of its intent to enter into a final settlement agreement with 15 of the identified 20 parties to resolve their respective alleged liability for the ROD work, each for a payment to the EPA in the amount of $280,600. The EPA has also been engaged in discussions, in which we are participating, with the remaining recipients of the Notice regarding a proposed framework for an allocation process that will lead to offers of cash-out settlements to certain additional parties and a consent decree in which parties that are not offered a cash-out settlement will agree to perform the lower 8-mile remedial action. The EPA-commenced allocation process was scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but is likely to be extended.

On June 30, 2018, Occidental filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for its alleged expenses with respect to the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Passaic River. The complaint lists over 120 defendants, including us, many of which were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. We do not know whether this new complaint will impact the EPA’s allocation process or the ultimate outcome of the matter. We intend to defend the claims consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings.

Many uncertainties remain regarding how the EPA intends to implement the ROD. We anticipate that performance of the EPA’s selected remedy will be subject to future negotiations, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform remedial action contemplated by either the ROD or RI/FS and do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey

We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with MTBE involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gasoline station properties from which the releases occurred. The majority of the named defendants have already settled their cases with the State of New Jersey. A portion of the case (“bellwether” trials) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for pre-trial proceedings and trial, although a trial date has not yet been set. We continue to engage in settlement negotiations and a dialogue with the plaintiffs’ counsel to educate them on the unique role of the Company and our business as compared to other defendants in the litigation. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe that it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount accrued with certainty for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings in excess of the amounts accrued as of December 31, 2018, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations intended to bolster their claims against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us. This motion is pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland

On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code.

On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It is unclear whether the matter will ultimately be removed to the MTBE MDL proceedings or remain in federal court in Maryland. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

Uniondale, New York Litigation

In September 2004, the State of New York commenced an action against us, United Gas Corp., Costa Gas Station, Inc., Vincent Costa, The Ingraham Bedell Corporation, Richard Berger and Exxon Mobil Corporation in New York Supreme Court in Albany County seeking recovery for reimbursement of investigation and remediation costs claimed to have been incurred by the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund relating to contamination it alleges emanated from various gasoline station properties located in the same vicinity in Uniondale, New York, including a site formerly owned by us and at which a petroleum release and cleanup occurred. The complaint also seeks future costs for remediation, as well as interest and penalties. We have served an answer to the complaint denying responsibility. In 2007, the State of New York commenced action against Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and related parties, in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County seeking basically the same relief sought in the action involving us. We have also filed a third-party complaint against Hess Corporation, Sprague Operating Resources LLC (successor to RAD Energy Corp.), Service Station Installation of NY, Inc., and certain individual defendants based on alleged contribution to the contamination that is the subject of the State’s claims arising from a petroleum discharge at a gasoline station up-gradient from the site formerly owned by us. In 2016, the various actions filed by the State of New York and our third-party actions were consolidated for discovery proceedings and trial. Discovery in this case is in later stages and, as it nears completion, a schedule for trial will be established. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case, in excess of the amounts accrued, as of December 31, 2018, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.