Exhibit 99
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company For Immediate Release
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
5501 N. State Route 2
Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449
News Media Contact:
Richard Wilkins
(419) 321-7129
FENOC, NRC DISCUSS PROGRESS
ON SAFETY, OTHER ISSUES AT DAVIS-BESSE
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) officials today discussed at
the monthly 0350 restart meeting the numerous projects that have been completed,
as well as remaining tasks necessary for restarting the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station. The meeting was conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) at Camp Perry, near Port Clinton, Ohio.
Reporting preliminary results from an employee survey conducted at the
plant in late March, Bill Pearce, vice president-FENOC Oversight, noted marked
improvement in many areas compared with survey results from August 2002. The
surveys were designed to measure the willingness of employees to identify and
report safety issues without concerns about reprisals.
"We had nearly 80-percent participation," Pearce said, "compared to 56
percent last year. And the results indicated improvement in 24 of 26 questions
asked in both surveys - in some cases as much as a 20-percentage-point
improvement, which tells us we're on the right track."
Examples of improvement:
o In March, 89 percent said that management clearly communicated
its expectations regarding safety, compared to 55 percent last
year.
(more)
o Eighty-two percent agreed that management is willing to listen to
problems, compared to 63 percent last year.
o Ninety percent said first-line supervisors address concerns
brought to their attention, compared to 61 percent last year.
o Seventy-six percent said that constructive criticism is
encouraged, compared to 53 percent last year.
The survey also identified some areas for improvement. For example, some
employees said that management had not fully demonstrated a commitment to
creating and maintaining a work environment that encourages employees to raise
safety issues. Also, they questioned the effectiveness of the Condition Report
process and the effectiveness and the confidentiality of the new Employee
Concerns Program.
1
In a related presentation, FENOC Chief Operating Officer Lew Myers
commented briefly on an independent safety culture assessment conducted in
February 2003 by Dr. Sonja Haber, an expert in organizational psychology. The
final report has been completed, Myers said, and will be discussed in detail at
a later NRC meeting.
"We believe our assessment is solid, and we saw alignment between the
findings in Dr. Haber's report with the results of our own assessment," Myers
said. "We're developing a comprehensive plan to address any outstanding areas
for improvement."
Recently completed projects discussed at the meeting included modification
of the Containment Emergency Sump; modification of the Decay Heat Valve Tank;
maintenance work on 90 motor-driven Reactor Coolant System Valves; installation
of a FLUS Leak Detection System on the bottom of the reactor vessel; and the
successful Integrated Leak Rate Test on the containment vessel.
(more)
FENOC officials also discussed projects that need to be completed prior to
restart. For example, FENOC officials are determining whether to replace two
High Pressure Injection Pumps, test the current ones with sump water, or install
additional filtration on the system. Also, crews are replacing relays on the
Safety Features Actuation System, completing the installation of the Containment
Air Coolers, and finishing painting of the containment dome.
The next milestone will be the pressure test of the Reactor Coolant System,
including the reactor vessel, slated for mid- to late May.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is a subsidiary of the Akron,
Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp., a registered public utility holding company.
Forward-Looking Statements: This news release includes forward-looking
statements based on information currently available to management. Such
statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. These statements
typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms "anticipate," "potential,"
"expect," "believe," "estimate" and similar words. Actual results may differ
materially due to the speed and nature of increased competition and deregulation
in the electric utility industry, economic or weather conditions affecting
future sales and margins, changes in markets for energy services, changing
energy market prices, legislative and regulatory changes or approvals (including
revised environmental requirements), availability and cost of capital, inability
to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits of strategic goals and other
similar factors.
(041503)
2