Home | Clean Water

Great Lakes Regional Refinery Expansions

British Petroleum in 2007 proposed and received approval from Indiana regulators for increases in pollution levels from BP’s Whiting, Ind., refinery.  The proposal quickly became a bellwether for similar refinery expansion proposals for the Great Lakes basin and beyond, all as a result of the increased use of heavy crude oil derived from tar sands in Canada. The use of these stocks, it was found, was becoming economical to tap and would ease national security concerns because much of the United States' oil comes from unstable Middle Eastern countries.

The Alliance is now monitoring proposed refinery expansions in the Great Lakes to ensure they are conducted in a manner that reduces and ultimately eliminates pollution over time and enhances quality of coastal habitat consistent with the federal Clean Water Act, key outcomes of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy and Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative standards. Concerned about global warming ramifications from the expansions, the Alliance is also partnering with leading organizations to address these pollutants. The region will require clean energy to support sustained economic development. Wind energy, both onshore and offshore, could be a portion of this energy requirement.

BP refinery-Whiting, Ind.
BP was issued a permit in the summer of 2007 for its refinery expansion, which allowed increased water pollution from total suspended solids and ammonia and put off tighter mercury limits for five years. After the Alliance and many others objected, BP agreed to abide by the lower limits in its old permit.
  BP deserves credit for researching mercury control technologies and agreeing to limit its discharges of ammonia and suspended solids, but several deficiencies remain with the proposed BP discharge permit -- among them that new mercury controls are not yet installed. With help and support from NRDC, Save the Dunes and other partners, the Alliance sent a joint letter in April 2013 urging the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to fix several deficiencies in BP’s proposed discharge permit. These include ensuring that:

1. BP’s stormwater pollution prevention plan is reviewed and strengthened.
2. BP implements best available technology controls for mercury and other pollutants.
3. BP uses the best technology available to reduce fish kills from its cooling water intake.

Marathon-Detroit, Mich.
Marathon's Detroit refinery began construction of its expansion project in June 2008 and completed the upgrade in late 2012. Unlike BP, Marathon's refinery does not discharge directly into the Great Lakes, but pretreats its waste and sends it to the city’s system for further treatment before it is discharged into the lake. The Alliance submitted comments about the impact of Marathon's expansion on the city's wastewater discharge; state officials have responded that they expect Marathon to comply with regulations.
  Another notable difference between Marathon in Michigan and BP in Indiana: Marathon plans to spend more than $50 million on additional control equipment, demonstrating what refineries can do if they are committed to appropriately treating their discharges.

Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (formerly Murphy Oil)-Superior, Wis.
No formal plans have been submitted, but a similar proposed expansion was studied at this refinery that would likely require use of additional land. As the refinery is surrounded by wetland areas, it is possible that the proposal could harm around 300-500 acres of wetlands. This is a concern because wetlands serve an important role as the kidneys of the Great Lakes and also provide habitat for many creatures. The Superior refinery was recently purchased by Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. The new owners are now exploring building an expanded docking facility to ship tar sands crude oil across the Great Lakes using tanker vessels.

BP-Toledo, Ohio
In Toledo, BP has an agreement with a Canadian company to expand its refinery and split the profits from processing oil sands. In June 2009, the Alliance called on Ohio to improve controls of toxic discharges from the refinery's wastewater. The final permit issued by Ohio incorporated several important changes recommended by the Alliance, including additional monitoring requirements for dioxin and requires BP to minimize discharges of dioxin it finds.

Shell Canada-Sarnia, Ontario
Shell Canada was studying the feasibility of building a new heavy oil refinery near Sarnia, Ontario, capable of producing between 150,000 and 250,000 barrels per day of various light oil products. Shell had also secured options on approximately 6,000 acres of land slated for industrial development in Lambton County, near Sarnia. In comments to the government of Canada in May 2008, the Alliance described the scope of environmental review necessary for such a project. In July 2008, Shell Canada announced it was abandoning its Sarnia expansion plans.