OIL SPILL EVENTS PROMINENT FRAMES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS by Alex Greer A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Disaster Science and Management Spring 2012 © 2012 Alex Greer All Rights Reserved OIL SPILL EVENTS PROMINENT FRAMES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS by Alex Greer Approved:___________________________________________________________________ Joanne Nigg, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved:___________________________________________________________________ Sue McNeil, Ph.D. Program director of Disaster Science and Management Approved:___________________________________________________________________ George Watson, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Approved:___________________________________________________________________ Charles Riordan, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Joanne Nigg who pushed me to do the best work I could possibly do and for reeling me back in when I would go off on tangential ideas, which I did constantly. Your encouragement and support not only helped me finish this manuscript but also helped me to have an incredible graduate experience. I cannot thank you enough for your commitment to my development. I would also like to thank my two other committee members, Joseph Trainor and Bob Warren, for their advice, guidance, and support throughout this process. The insights they have had on this topic have helped to turn this into a readable product; I’m fairly certain it would not have been without their help. I am very appreciative of the time the rest of the DRC faculty and staff have put into my development. The classes I have taken, the opportunities I have been given, and the resources available to me have shaped me into the scholar I have become. My fellow Disaster Research Center Research Assistants as well as my cohort also deserve special acknowledgement. I was amazed at the constant positive reinforcement and challenging of my ideas I was always able to find just a classroom or cubicle away. Many of you truly challenged the way I thought about important issues in this field and shaped the way this manuscript developed. Graduate school can be a tough experience but you have made it one of my most enjoyable ones. iii I am also very indebted to the wonderful family I am truly blessed with. Despite the geographical distance between us, your love and support has kept me going on the all-nighters this paper and degree program has required. My wife Delilah has been and is my foundation when things get too stressful. Your love, patience, and ability to pull me out of the office ensured that a bit of my sanity remained. Your selfless support made this effort possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES………..........................................................................................................viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT….................................................................................................................................x Chapter 1. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................1 Introduction………..............................................................................................................1 Literature Review.................................................................................................................2 Disaster Policy….....................................................................................................2 Issue Attention Cycle………...................................................................................4 Framing………........................................................................................................5 2. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................9 Policy Identification………................................................................................................9 Media Analysis………......................................................................................................12 Grounded Theory and Narrowing the Policy.....................................................................12 In-Depth Interviews………...............................................................................................14 Analysis………..................................................................................................................15 3. CASE STUDIES…………................................................................................................17 Platform A…………..........................................................................................................17 Exxon Valdez......................................................................................................................19 Deepwater Horizon……....................................................................................................21 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………….25 Platform A…………..........................................................................................................27 Exxon Valdez......................................................................................................................31 Deepwater Horizon……....................................................................................................43 v 5. CONSLUSIONS................................................................................................................51 Framing………..................................................................................................................51 Regulation………..............................................................................................................53 Limitations and Future Research.......................................................................................57 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................60 Appendix A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE...................................................................................70 B LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................81 C IRB APPROVAL FORMS....................................................................................90 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Description of Interviewees………………………………………………………….....15 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Timeline of Oil Spills and Policy...................................................................................26 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The following table displays the various abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the thesis along with their meaning. The page on which each abbreviation is first used is the final column. Abbreviation Meaning Page BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 21 BP British Petroleum 1 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 11 Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 11 CWA Clean Water Act 11 DRC Disaster Research Center 9 DWH Deepwater Horizon 1 EPA Environmental Protection Agency 10 FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator 38 GOO Get Oil Out 27 IMO International Maritime Organization 36 INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 54 MMS Minerals Management Service 1 NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 11 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 11 NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 54 NRF National Response Framework 40 OCSA Outer Continental Shelf Act 11 OPA Oil Pollution Act 11 OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 11 PWSRCAC Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council 34 RP Responsible Party 23 RRT Regional Response Team 20 USCG United States Coast Guard 33 USGS United States Geological Survey 18 ix ABSTRACT The purposes of this thesis are twofold; to gain insight through the lens of framing as to how the framing of a spill influences policy change and discern how competing frames affect policy. The second is to offer new recommendations to help bridge the safety gap the industry currently experiences, exposed by these three spills. For this study, three oil spills were chosen due to the considerable policy changes they invoked, the media attention they garnered, and their size; the Union Oil’s Platform A blowout in Santa Barbara, California of 1969, the wreck of the Exxon Valdez of 1989, and the Deepwater Horizon blowout of 2010. To address these questions, multiple data sources were used to gain an understanding on how key stakeholders framed oil spills and analyze the resulting policy. A content analysis was performed for all three spills on scholarly articles, media articles, after action reports, court records, policy, and policy recommendations. This study also draws on in-depth interviews with key informants that were intimately involved in at least one of the three spills. The study findings suggest that framing does significantly affect the policy that results. In Union Oil’s Platform A, the framing was overwhelmingly suggesting that the spill was an environmental and ecological tragedy which could not happen again. The Exxon Valdez is essentially the story of three competing frameworks, eventually giving way to a regulatory framing of the event. The Deepwater Horizon also experienced three competing frames; there was a framing of the event as a slow-onset environmental catastrophe, which coincided with the framing that focused on the economic losses, and eventually the framing of the spill as failure in the regulatory structure. The implications of competing frameworks on policy in these spills are also discussed. x