COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Matters The Company’s refineries are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, those relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or that otherwise relate to the protection of the environment, waste management and the characteristics and the compositions of fuels. Compliance with existing and anticipated laws and regulations can increase the overall cost of operating the refineries, including remediation, operating costs and capital costs to construct, maintain and upgrade equipment and facilities. In connection with the Paulsboro refinery acquisition, the Company assumed certain environmental remediation obligations. The environmental liability of $10,714 recorded as of September 30, 2015 ($10,476 as of December 31, 2014) represents the present value of expected future costs discounted at a rate of 8.0%. The current portion of the environmental liability is recorded in Accrued expenses and the non-current portion is recorded in Other long-term liabilities. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, this liability is self-guaranteed by the Company. In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets, Valero Energy Corporation ("Valero") remains responsible for certain pre-acquisition environmental obligations up to $20,000 and the predecessor to Valero in ownership of the refinery retains other historical obligations. In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets and the Paulsboro refinery, the Company and Valero purchased ten year, $75,000 environmental insurance policies to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at each site. In connection with the Toledo refinery acquisition, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) ("Sunoco") remains responsible for environmental remediation for conditions that existed on the closing date for twenty years from March 1, 2011, subject to certain limitations. In 2010, New York State adopted a Low-Sulfur Heating Oil mandate that, beginning July 1, 2012, requires all heating oil sold in New York State to contain no more than 15 parts per million ("PPM") sulfur. Since July 1, 2012, other states in the Northeast market began requiring heating oil sold in their state to contain no more than 15 PPM sulfur. Currently, six Northeastern states require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur. By July 1, 2016, two more states are expected to adopt this requirement and by July 1, 2018 most of the remaining Northeastern states (except for Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) will require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur. All of the heating oil the Company currently produces meets these specifications. The mandate and other requirements do not currently have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The EPA issued the final Tier 3 Gasoline standards on March 3, 2014 under the Clean Air Act. This final rule establishes more stringent vehicle emission standards and further reduces the sulfur content of gasoline starting in January of 2017. The new standard is set at 10 PPM sulfur in gasoline on an annual average basis starting January 1, 2017, with a credit trading program to provide compliance flexibility. The EPA responded to industry comments on the proposed rule and maintained the per gallon sulfur cap on gasoline at the existing 80 PPM cap. The standards set by the new rule are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The EPA was required to release the final annual standards for the Reformulated Fuels Standard ("RFS") for 2014 no later than Nov 29, 2013 and for 2015 no later than Nov 29, 2014. The EPA did not meet these requirements but did release proposed standards for 2014. The EPA did not finalize this proposal in 2014. However, in May 2015, the EPA re-proposed annual standards for RFS 2 for 2014, and proposed new standards for 2015 and 2016 and biomass-based diesel volumes for 2017. The EPA is proposing volume requirements in the annual standards which, while below the volumes originally set by Congress, would increase renewable fuel use in the U.S. above historical levels and provide for steady growth over time. The EPA is also proposing to increase the required volume of biomass-based diesel in 2015, 2016, and 2017 while maintaining the opportunity for growth in other advanced biofuels. The EPA has solicited comments on the proposed annual standards and held public hearings on June 25, 2015. Final action on this proposal is expected by November 30, 2015. If they are issued, the final standards may have a material impact on the Company's cost of compliance with RFS 2. On September 12, 2012, the EPA issued final amendments to the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") for petroleum refineries, including standards for emissions of nitrogen oxides from process heaters and work practice standards and monitoring requirements for flares. The Company has evaluated the impact of the regulation and amended standards on its refinery operations and currently does not expect the cost to comply to be material. In addition, the EPA published a Final Rule to the Clean Water Act ("CWA") Section 316(b) in August 2014 regarding cooling water intake structures which includes requirements for petroleum refineries. The purpose of this rule is to prevent fish from being trapped against cooling water intake screens (impingement) and to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling water systems (entrainment). Facilities will be required to implement Best Technology Available (BTA) as soon as possible, but state agencies have the discretion to establish implementation time lines. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of this regulation, and at this time does not anticipate it having a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Delaware City Rail Terminal and DCR West Rack are collocated with the Delaware City refinery, and are located in Delaware's coastal zone where certain activities are regulated under the Delaware Coastal Zone act. On June 14, 2013, two administrative appeals were filed by the Sierra Club and Delaware Audubon (collectively the "Appellants") regarding an air permit Delaware City Refining obtained to allow loading of crude oil onto barges. The appeals allege that both the loading of crude oil onto barges and the operation of the Delaware City Rail Terminal violate Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act. The first appeal is Number 2013-1 before the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board (the “CZ Board”), and the second appeal is before the Environmental Appeals Board (the "EAB") and appeals Secretary’s Order No. 2013-A-0020. The CZ Board held a hearing on the first appeal on July 16, 2013, and ruled in favor of Delaware City Refining and the State of Delaware and dismissed the Appellants’ appeal for lack of standing. The Appellants appealed that decision to the Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County, Case No. N13A-09-001 ALR, and Delaware City Refining and the State of Delaware filed cross-appeals. A hearing on the second appeal before the EAB, case no. 2013-06, was held on January 13, 2014, and the EAB ruled in favor of Delaware City Refining and the State and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellants also filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court appealing the EAB’s decision. On March 31, 2015 the Superior Court affirmed the decisions by both the CZ Board and the EAB stating they both lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Appellants' appeal. The Appellants appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and, on November 5, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court decision. The Company is also currently subject to certain other existing environmental claims and proceedings. The Company believes that there is only a remote possibility that future costs related to any of these other known contingent liability exposures would have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. PBF LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement The holders of limited liability company interests in PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, generally have to include for purposes of calculating their U.S. federal, state and local income taxes their share of any taxable income of PBF LLC, regardless of whether such holders receive cash distributions from PBF LLC. PBF Energy ultimately may not receive cash distributions from PBF LLC equal to its share of such taxable income or even equal to the actual tax due with respect to that income. For example, PBF LLC is required to include in taxable income PBF LLC’s allocable share of PBFX’s taxable income and gains (such share to be determined pursuant to the partnership agreement of PBFX), regardless of the amount of cash distributions received by PBF LLC from PBFX, and such taxable income and gains will flow-through to PBF Energy to the extent of its allocable share of the taxable income of PBF LLC. As a result, at certain times, the amount of cash otherwise ultimately available to PBF Energy on account of its indirect interest in PBFX may not be sufficient for PBF Energy to pay the amount of taxes it will owe on account of its indirect interests in PBFX. Taxable income of PBF LLC generally is allocated to the holders of PBF LLC units (including PBF Energy) pro-rata in accordance with their respective share of the net profits and net losses of PBF LLC. In general, PBF LLC is required to make periodic tax distributions to the members of PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, pro-rata in accordance with their respective percentage interests for such period (as determined under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of PBF LLC), subject to available cash and applicable law and contractual restrictions (including pursuant to our debt instruments) and based on certain assumptions. Generally, these tax distributions are required to be in an amount equal to our estimate of the taxable income of PBF LLC for the year multiplied by an assumed tax rate equal to the highest effective marginal combined U.S. federal, state and local income tax rate prescribed for an individual or corporate resident in New York, New York (taking into account the nondeductibility of certain expenses). If, with respect to any given calendar year, the aggregate periodic tax distributions were less than the actual taxable income of PBF LLC multiplied by the assumed tax rate, PBF LLC is required to make a “true up” tax distribution, no later than March 15 of the following year, equal to such difference, subject to the available cash and borrowings of PBF LLC. PBF LLC obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX. Tax Receivable Agreement PBF Energy (the Company's indirect parent) entered into a tax receivable agreement with the PBF LLC Series A and PBF LLC Series B Unit holders (the “Tax Receivable Agreement”) that provides for the payment by PBF Energy to such persons of an amount equal to 85% of the amount of the benefits, if any, that PBF Energy is deemed to realize as a result of (i) increases in tax basis, as described below, and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. For purposes of the Tax Receivable Agreement, the benefits deemed realized by PBF Energy will be computed by comparing the actual income tax liability of PBF Energy (calculated with certain assumptions) to the amount of such taxes that PBF Energy would have been required to pay had there been no increase to the tax basis of the assets of PBF LLC as a result of purchases or exchanges of PBF LLC Series A Units for shares of PBF Energy's Class A common stock and had PBF Energy not entered into the Tax Receivable Agreement. The term of the Tax Receivable Agreement will continue until all such tax benefits have been utilized or expired unless: (i) PBF Energy exercises its right to terminate the Tax Receivable Agreement, (ii) PBF Energy breaches any of its material obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement or (iii) certain changes of control occur, in which case all obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement will generally be accelerated and due as calculated under certain assumptions. The payment obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement are obligations of PBF Energy and not of PBF LLC or the Company. In general, PBF Energy expects to obtain funding for these annual payments from PBF LLC, primarily through tax distributions, which PBF LLC makes on a pro-rata basis to its owners. Such owners include PBF Energy, which holds a 94.4% interest in PBF LLC as of September 30, 2015 (89.9% as of December 31, 2014). PBF LLC obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

The Company’s refineries are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, those relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or that otherwise relate to the protection of the environment, waste management and the characteristics and the compositions of fuels. Compliance with existing and anticipated laws and regulations can increase the overall cost of operating the refineries, including remediation, operating costs and capital costs to construct, maintain and upgrade equipment and facilities.

In connection with the Paulsboro refinery acquisition, the Company assumed certain environmental remediation obligations. The environmental liability of $10,714 recorded as of September 30, 2015 ($10,476 as of December 31, 2014) represents the present value of expected future costs discounted at a rate of 8.0%. The current portion of the environmental liability is recorded in Accrued expenses and the non-current portion is recorded in Other long-term liabilities. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, this liability is self-guaranteed by the Company.

In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets, Valero Energy Corporation ("Valero") remains responsible for certain pre-acquisition environmental obligations up to $20,000 and the predecessor to Valero in ownership of the refinery retains other historical obligations.

In connection with the acquisition of the Delaware City assets and the Paulsboro refinery, the Company and Valero purchased ten year, $75,000 environmental insurance policies to insure against unknown environmental liabilities at each site. In connection with the Toledo refinery acquisition, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) ("Sunoco") remains responsible for environmental remediation for conditions that existed on the closing date for twenty years from March 1, 2011, subject to certain limitations.

In 2010, New York State adopted a Low-Sulfur Heating Oil mandate that, beginning July 1, 2012, requires all heating oil sold in New York State to contain no more than 15 parts per million ("PPM") sulfur. Since July 1, 2012, other states in the Northeast market began requiring heating oil sold in their state to contain no more than 15 PPM sulfur. Currently, six Northeastern states require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur. By July 1, 2016, two more states are expected to adopt this requirement and by July 1, 2018 most of the remaining Northeastern states (except for Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) will require heating oil with 15 PPM or less sulfur. All of the heating oil the Company currently produces meets these specifications. The mandate and other requirements do not currently have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The EPA issued the final Tier 3 Gasoline standards on March 3, 2014 under the Clean Air Act. This final rule establishes more stringent vehicle emission standards and further reduces the sulfur content of gasoline starting in January of 2017. The new standard is set at 10 PPM sulfur in gasoline on an annual average basis starting January 1, 2017, with a credit trading program to provide compliance flexibility. The EPA responded to industry comments on the proposed rule and maintained the per gallon sulfur cap on gasoline at the existing 80 PPM cap. The standards set by the new rule are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The EPA was required to release the final annual standards for the Reformulated Fuels Standard ("RFS") for 2014 no later than Nov 29, 2013 and for 2015 no later than Nov 29, 2014. The EPA did not meet these requirements but did release proposed standards for 2014. The EPA did not finalize this proposal in 2014. However, in May 2015, the EPA re-proposed annual standards for RFS 2 for 2014, and proposed new standards for 2015 and 2016 and biomass-based diesel volumes for 2017. The EPA is proposing volume requirements in the annual standards which, while below the volumes originally set by Congress, would increase renewable fuel use in the U.S. above historical levels and provide for steady growth over time. The EPA is also proposing to increase the required volume of biomass-based diesel in 2015, 2016, and 2017 while maintaining the opportunity for growth in other advanced biofuels. The EPA has solicited comments on the proposed annual standards and held public hearings on June 25, 2015. Final action on this proposal is expected by November 30, 2015. If they are issued, the final standards may have a material impact on the Company's cost of compliance with RFS 2.

On September 12, 2012, the EPA issued final amendments to the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") for petroleum refineries, including standards for emissions of nitrogen oxides from process heaters and work practice standards and monitoring requirements for flares. The Company has evaluated the impact of the regulation and amended standards on its refinery operations and currently does not expect the cost to comply to be material.

In addition, the EPA published a Final Rule to the Clean Water Act ("CWA") Section 316(b) in August 2014 regarding cooling water intake structures which includes requirements for petroleum refineries. The purpose of this rule is to prevent fish from being trapped against cooling water intake screens (impingement) and to prevent fish from being drawn through cooling water systems (entrainment). Facilities will be required to implement Best Technology Available (BTA) as soon as possible, but state agencies have the discretion to establish implementation time lines. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of this regulation, and at this time does not anticipate it having a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The Delaware City Rail Terminal and DCR West Rack are collocated with the Delaware City refinery, and are located in Delaware's coastal zone where certain activities are regulated under the Delaware Coastal Zone act. On June 14, 2013, two administrative appeals were filed by the Sierra Club and Delaware Audubon (collectively the "Appellants") regarding an air permit Delaware City Refining obtained to allow loading of crude oil onto barges. The appeals allege that both the loading of crude oil onto barges and the operation of the Delaware City Rail Terminal violate Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act. The first appeal is Number 2013-1 before the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board (the “CZ Board”), and the second appeal is before the Environmental Appeals Board (the "EAB") and appeals Secretary’s Order No. 2013-A-0020. The CZ Board held a hearing on the first appeal on July 16, 2013, and ruled in favor of Delaware City Refining and the State of Delaware and dismissed the Appellants’ appeal for lack of standing. The Appellants appealed that decision to the Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County, Case No. N13A-09-001 ALR, and Delaware City Refining and the State of Delaware filed cross-appeals. A hearing on the second appeal before the EAB, case no. 2013-06, was held on January 13, 2014, and the EAB ruled in favor of Delaware City Refining and the State and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellants also filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court appealing the EAB’s decision. On March 31, 2015 the Superior Court affirmed the decisions by both the CZ Board and the EAB stating they both lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Appellants' appeal. The Appellants appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and, on November 5, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court decision.

The Company is also currently subject to certain other existing environmental claims and proceedings. The Company believes that there is only a remote possibility that future costs related to any of these other known contingent liability exposures would have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

PBF LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement

The holders of limited liability company interests in PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, generally have to include for purposes of calculating their U.S. federal, state and local income taxes their share of any taxable income of PBF LLC, regardless of whether such holders receive cash distributions from PBF LLC. PBF Energy ultimately may not receive cash distributions from PBF LLC equal to its share of such taxable income or even equal to the actual tax due with respect to that income. For example, PBF LLC is required to include in taxable income PBF LLC’s allocable share of PBFX’s taxable income and gains (such share to be determined pursuant to the partnership agreement of PBFX), regardless of the amount of cash distributions received by PBF LLC from PBFX, and such taxable income and gains will flow-through to PBF Energy to the extent of its allocable share of the taxable income of PBF LLC. As a result, at certain times, the amount of cash otherwise ultimately available to PBF Energy on account of its indirect interest in PBFX may not be sufficient for PBF Energy to pay the amount of taxes it will owe on account of its indirect interests in PBFX.

Taxable income of PBF LLC generally is allocated to the holders of PBF LLC units (including PBF Energy) pro-rata in accordance with their respective share of the net profits and net losses of PBF LLC. In general, PBF LLC is required to make periodic tax distributions to the members of PBF LLC, including PBF Energy, pro-rata in accordance with their respective percentage interests for such period (as determined under the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of PBF LLC), subject to available cash and applicable law and contractual restrictions (including pursuant to our debt instruments) and based on certain assumptions. Generally, these tax distributions are required to be in an amount equal to our estimate of the taxable income of PBF LLC for the year multiplied by an assumed tax rate equal to the highest effective marginal combined U.S. federal, state and local income tax rate prescribed for an individual or corporate resident in New York, New York (taking into account the nondeductibility of certain expenses). If, with respect to any given calendar year, the aggregate periodic tax distributions were less than the actual taxable income of PBF LLC multiplied by the assumed tax rate, PBF LLC is required to make a “true up” tax distribution, no later than March 15 of the following year, equal to such difference, subject to the available cash and borrowings of PBF LLC. PBF LLC obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX.

Tax Receivable Agreement

PBF Energy (the Company's indirect parent) entered into a tax receivable agreement with the PBF LLC Series A and PBF LLC Series B Unit holders (the “Tax Receivable Agreement”) that provides for the payment by PBF Energy to such persons of an amount equal to 85% of the amount of the benefits, if any, that PBF Energy is deemed to realize as a result of (i) increases in tax basis, as described below, and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. For purposes of the Tax Receivable Agreement, the benefits deemed realized by PBF Energy will be computed by comparing the actual income tax liability of PBF Energy (calculated with certain assumptions) to the amount of such taxes that PBF Energy would have been required to pay had there been no increase to the tax basis of the assets of PBF LLC as a result of purchases or exchanges of PBF LLC Series A Units for shares of PBF Energy's Class A common stock and had PBF Energy not entered into the Tax Receivable Agreement. The term of the Tax Receivable Agreement will continue until all such tax benefits have been utilized or expired unless: (i) PBF Energy exercises its right to terminate the Tax Receivable Agreement, (ii) PBF Energy breaches any of its material obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement or (iii) certain changes of control occur, in which case all obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement will generally be accelerated and due as calculated under certain assumptions.

The payment obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement are obligations of PBF Energy and not of PBF LLC or the Company. In general, PBF Energy expects to obtain funding for these annual payments from PBF LLC, primarily through tax distributions, which PBF LLC makes on a pro-rata basis to its owners. Such owners include PBF Energy, which holds a 94.4% interest in PBF LLC as of September 30, 2015 (89.9% as of December 31, 2014). PBF LLC obtains funding to pay its tax distributions by causing PBF Holding to distribute cash to PBF LLC and from distributions it receives from PBFX.