lastID = -280873
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Loading icon
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree...
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2022-05-04 20:16:49 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-30 20:33:40 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-30 20:33:39 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-27 15:31:40 Katherine Saltzman
  • 2020-03-27 15:31:39 Katherine Saltzman
  • 2020-03-26 22:40:44 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-01-31 20:22:05 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 20:22:04 Administrator
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree...
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2

Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2

Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree...
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2
Abstract
The February 2011 Engineering News Record article “With a Modified Consent Decree, Indianapolis Is Cleaning Up” (ENR, 2011) provided a high-level summary of Amendment No. 2 to the Indianapolis Consent Decree (CD), which reduced estimated CSO program costs by $740 million. The CD modification has been celebrated by U.S. EPA as a “win-win” since it resulted in cost savings for the city and additional capture of CSO discharges.In May 2009, Indianapolis DPW and RebuildIndy program management team staff proposed to U.S. EPA Region 5 a modification of the CD for 14 of the 31 combined sewer control measures in the consent decree, including the deep tunnel system and the Southport advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant expansion, which are the two largest components of the consent decree. The amendment was formally approved and entered in December 2010. In order to be recommended for approval by EPA and DOJ staff, it was necessary for Indianapolis to demonstrate that the proposed modifications had better environmental benefits than the original CD that was entered in January 2007. The technical basis for proving the environmental benefits to EPA and DOJ included:• Hydraulic Modeling: A more detailed evaluation of the CSO system determined that average annual CSO volumes are approximately 30% lower than understood at the time of the original CD. This finding, in conjunction with the first CD amendment, allowed for smaller facilities to achieve the same performance criteria. The expansion and calibration of the hydraulic model since January 2007 was presented in detail to EPA to confirm the updated facility sizes.• Sustainability: The accepted modifications to the CD included a more sustainable plan, not from the standpoint of green infrastructure, but from the standpoint of shifting CSO control measures away from shallow interceptors, in-line storage, pump stations, and treatment expansions, and towards storage facilities with a longer service life, better reliability, and lower electrical and chemical usage.• Sewage Out Sooner: The accepted modifications to the CD included a lower average annual CSO discharge after full implementation than the original CD, and also allowed for accelerating key projects to capture an additional 3.5 billion gallons of CSO by full implementation.
The February 2011 Engineering News Record article “With a Modified Consent Decree, Indianapolis Is Cleaning Up” (ENR, 2011) provided a high-level summary of Amendment No. 2 to the Indianapolis Consent Decree (CD), which reduced estimated CSO program costs by $740 million. The CD modification has been celebrated by U.S. EPA as a “win-win” since it resulted in cost savings...
Author(s)
Christopher J. RanckMark JacobSteve NielsenDoug ReichlinBob Masbaum
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jun, 2012
ISSN1938-6478
DOI10.2175/193864712811699762
Volume / Issue2012 / 4
Content sourceCollection Systems Conference
Copyright2012
Word count373

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree...
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-280873
Get access
-280873
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree...
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2
Abstract
The February 2011 Engineering News Record article “With a Modified Consent Decree, Indianapolis Is Cleaning Up” (ENR, 2011) provided a high-level summary of Amendment No. 2 to the Indianapolis Consent Decree (CD), which reduced estimated CSO program costs by $740 million. The CD modification has been celebrated by U.S. EPA as a “win-win” since it resulted in cost savings for the city and additional capture of CSO discharges.In May 2009, Indianapolis DPW and RebuildIndy program management team staff proposed to U.S. EPA Region 5 a modification of the CD for 14 of the 31 combined sewer control measures in the consent decree, including the deep tunnel system and the Southport advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant expansion, which are the two largest components of the consent decree. The amendment was formally approved and entered in December 2010. In order to be recommended for approval by EPA and DOJ staff, it was necessary for Indianapolis to demonstrate that the proposed modifications had better environmental benefits than the original CD that was entered in January 2007. The technical basis for proving the environmental benefits to EPA and DOJ included:• Hydraulic Modeling: A more detailed evaluation of the CSO system determined that average annual CSO volumes are approximately 30% lower than understood at the time of the original CD. This finding, in conjunction with the first CD amendment, allowed for smaller facilities to achieve the same performance criteria. The expansion and calibration of the hydraulic model since January 2007 was presented in detail to EPA to confirm the updated facility sizes.• Sustainability: The accepted modifications to the CD included a more sustainable plan, not from the standpoint of green infrastructure, but from the standpoint of shifting CSO control measures away from shallow interceptors, in-line storage, pump stations, and treatment expansions, and towards storage facilities with a longer service life, better reliability, and lower electrical and chemical usage.• Sewage Out Sooner: The accepted modifications to the CD included a lower average annual CSO discharge after full implementation than the original CD, and also allowed for accelerating key projects to capture an additional 3.5 billion gallons of CSO by full implementation.
The February 2011 Engineering News Record article “With a Modified Consent Decree, Indianapolis Is Cleaning Up” (ENR, 2011) provided a high-level summary of Amendment No. 2 to the Indianapolis Consent Decree (CD), which reduced estimated CSO program costs by $740 million. The CD modification has been celebrated by U.S. EPA as a “win-win” since it resulted in cost savings...
Author(s)
Christopher J. RanckMark JacobSteve NielsenDoug ReichlinBob Masbaum
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jun, 2012
ISSN1938-6478
DOI10.2175/193864712811699762
Volume / Issue2012 / 4
Content sourceCollection Systems Conference
Copyright2012
Word count373

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2025 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Christopher J. Ranck# Mark Jacob# Steve Nielsen# Doug Reichlin# Bob Masbaum. Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-280873CITANCHOR>.
Christopher J. Ranck# Mark Jacob# Steve Nielsen# Doug Reichlin# Bob Masbaum. Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed October 25, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-280873CITANCHOR.
Christopher J. Ranck# Mark Jacob# Steve Nielsen# Doug Reichlin# Bob Masbaum
Behind the $740M: Building a Technical Consensus for Indianapolis Consent Decree Amendment No. 2
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
October 25, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-280873CITANCHOR