Unified or distinct: an analysis of two after-action reports published by the Tennessee Valley Authority following the 2008 Kingston Coal Fly Ash Slurry Spill at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Kingston, Tennessee

Abstract

This thesis is a case study comparing narratives presented in the AECOM Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and McKenna Long and Aldridge (MLA) Report addressing the 2008 Kingston Coal Fly Ash Slurry Spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant (KFP). Two stages of coding were conducted for each document, and results were compared quantitatively and qualitatively. AECOM RCA is a traditional engineering root cause analysis focused exclusively on the Kingston facility and the 2008 coal fly ash spill with an eye towards avoiding or minimizing potential legal action. The narrative is one of an unexpected, unique and unavoidable act of Nature impacting the KFP, TVA and area residents. The MLA Report follows a report-style structure with an organizational studies approach using lay language as it identifies and recommends lessons learned for all levels of the organization. In contrast to AECOM RCA, the MLA Report narrative depicts the event as predictable, avoidable and by no means unique to TVA’s Fossil Fleet or the fossil power industry. Though given the same information about the Spill, KFP’s practices and TVA’s organization, AECOM RCA and MLA Report investigators draw different conclusions and present distinct narratives of the event. The quantitative and qualitative differences highlight influences of framing on post-event investigations and reports, even when originating from the single responsible organization. A brief discussion on ideality versus reality of the use of the documents by practitioners is also included.