Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 4. — 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 June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accrued $17,788,000 and $17,820,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. 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. 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 (“PRPs”) 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 we sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. In 2005, the NJDEP initiated litigation in the Superior Court of Essex County against Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”), Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”), Repsol YPF, S.A., YPF, S.A., YPF Holdings, Inc. and CLH Holdings, Inc. as former owners, operators and/or affiliates of the Diamond Shamrock Corporation facility located at 80 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey in the matter of the NJDEP et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corp. et al., alleging these entities are responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances from the Lister facility. The Defendants asserted third-party claims against over 300 third-party defendants, including us, seeking contribution or cost recovery for the claims asserted by the NJDEP. On December 12, 2013, the NJDEP entered into a consent judgment resolving the NJDEP’s claims against all third-party defendants, and releasing third-party defendants for any obligation to comply with the terms of the Directive and for future natural resource damage claims that may be brought by the State of New Jersey to the extent such claims do not exceed 20% of the aggregate funds paid by the third-party defendants in settlement of the state court litigation. Subject to this reservation of rights by the NJDEP, the demands made by the NJDEP pursuant to the Directive, as they apply to us, are resolved. In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, which 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 interim 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, which sets forth various alternatives for remediating the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On August 12, 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study to the EPA which identifies various targeted dredge and cap alternatives, which the EPA is still evaluating. 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”) with the EPA 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 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 PRPs 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 (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides in the Lower Passaic River generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Alkali Company plant and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Lower Passaic River), for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” PRPs for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the PRPs and other parties not yet identified as will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. In December 2019, Occidental submitted a report to the EPA on the progress of the remedial design work, which is still ongoing. Occidental has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus and Tierra for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Occidental has also asserted that Maxus and Tierra’s parent company, YPF, S.A. (“YPF”) and certain of its affiliates must indemnify Occidental. On June 16, 2016, Maxus and Tierra filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF 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 in the Maxus/Tierra bankruptcy proceedings for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River. In July 2017, an amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective and, in connection therewith, Maxus/Tierra and certain other parties, including us, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement pertaining to certain past costs, but not future remedy costs. 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 PRPs to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD, who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the ROD. The letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other PRPs for negotiation of similar cash out settlements. 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. In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third party allocation expert to conduct allocation proceedings with most of the remaining recipients of the Notice, which is anticipated to lead to additional offers of cash out settlements to certain additional parties and/or 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 allocation proceedings, which we are participating in, were scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but have been extended and are still ongoing. 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 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 who were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. Factual discovery is ongoing, and we are defending 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 negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform any 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. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations, including, among other factors, because we do not believe that there was any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely bear any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, and/or one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, are uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on our results of operations could be material. 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 possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued as of June 30, 2020, which 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, Sharon Irni, 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 of New York’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 possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case could exceed the amounts accrued, as of June 30, 2020, which 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

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 4. — 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 June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accrued $17,788,000 and $17,820,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. 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.

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 (“PRPs”) 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 we sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. In 2005, the NJDEP initiated litigation in the Superior Court of Essex County against Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”), Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”), Repsol YPF, S.A., YPF, S.A., YPF Holdings, Inc. and CLH Holdings, Inc. as former owners, operators and/or affiliates of the Diamond Shamrock Corporation facility located at 80 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey in the matter of the NJDEP et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corp. et al., alleging these entities are responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances from the Lister facility. The Defendants asserted third-party claims against over 300 third-party defendants, including us, seeking contribution or cost recovery for the claims asserted by the NJDEP. On December 12, 2013, the NJDEP entered into a consent judgment resolving the NJDEP’s claims against all third-party defendants, and releasing third-party defendants for any obligation to comply with the terms of the Directive and for future natural resource damage claims that may be brought by the State of New Jersey to the extent such claims do not exceed 20% of the aggregate funds paid by the third-party defendants in settlement of the state court litigation. Subject to this reservation of rights by the NJDEP, the demands made by the NJDEP pursuant to the Directive, as they apply to us, are resolved.

In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, which 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 interim 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, which sets forth various alternatives for remediating the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On August 12, 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study to the EPA which identifies various targeted dredge and cap alternatives, which the EPA is still evaluating.

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”) with the EPA 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 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 PRPs 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 (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides in the Lower Passaic River generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Alkali Company plant and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Lower Passaic River), for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” PRPs for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the PRPs and other parties not yet identified as will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. In December 2019, Occidental submitted a report to the EPA on the progress of the remedial design work, which is still ongoing.

Occidental has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus and Tierra for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Occidental has also asserted that Maxus and Tierra’s parent company, YPF, S.A. (“YPF”) and certain of its affiliates must indemnify Occidental. On June 16, 2016, Maxus and Tierra filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF 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 in the Maxus/Tierra bankruptcy proceedings for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River. In July 2017, an amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective and, in connection therewith, Maxus/Tierra and certain other parties, including us, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement pertaining to certain past costs, but not future remedy costs.

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 PRPs to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD, who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the ROD. The letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other PRPs for negotiation of similar cash out settlements. 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. In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third party allocation expert to conduct allocation proceedings with most of the remaining recipients of the Notice, which is anticipated to lead to additional offers of cash out settlements to certain additional parties and/or 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 allocation proceedings, which we are participating in, were scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but have been extended and are still ongoing.

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 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 who were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. Factual discovery is ongoing, and we are defending 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 negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform any 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.

Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations, including, among other factors, because we do not believe that there was any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely bear any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, and/or one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, are uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on our results of operations could be material.

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 possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued as of June 30, 2020, which 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, Sharon Irni, 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 of New York’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 possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case could exceed the amounts accrued, as of June 30, 2020, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.