FPL Executives Got $60 Mln for Failed Entergy Buyout

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Index:



FPL Executives Got $60 Mln for Failed Entergy Buyout

NRC considers plan to convert plutonium to reactor fuel

EDF to Pay Cogema 30% Less to Process Nuclear Fuel, Paper Says

TXU's Comanche Peak nuke outage not extended due to tubes

Greenpeace to return to courts over nuclear fuel rods

Ontario's nuclear plants exceed targets

Nuclear energy on radar screen again 

=========================================



FPL Executives Got $60 Mln for Failed Entergy Buyout



(Note: Something awfully wrong here ... too bad their employee 

severance packages aren't this lucrative)!!!!



Juno Beach, Florida, April 3 (Bloomberg) -- FPL Group Inc. Chief 

Executive James Broadhead said he and seven other executives will 

keep about $60 million they received when shareholders approved the 

buyout of Entergy Corp. that collapsed yesterday. 



The payments were an early distribution of money owed to the 

executives under the company's long-term compensation plan, said Mary 

Lou Kromer, a company spokeswoman. If the merger had not been in the 

works, the executives would have received the pay over four years 

rather than in one lump sum, she said. Broadhead received about $22.7 

million, Kromer said. 



Shareholders approved the payments in December to encourage FPL's top 

management to stay while the board sorted out who would remain with 

the company after the merger and who wouldn't, Kromer said. John 

Hancock Patriot Funds manager Gregory Phelps said the money should be 

returned now that the buyout has failed. 



``They sucked $60 million out of the company for something they 

didn't deliver on,'' said Phelps, whose funds own some preferred 

shares of FPL. ``In good faith, they should put it in escrow and have 

the shareholders vote on it again at another meeting.'' 



The management of the FPL was in doubt in because the companies had 

originally expected Entergy Chief Executive Wayne Leonard to take 

over the company after the merger and for Broadhead to retire. 



Rules Changed 



One reason the merger collapsed was that Broadhead had decided not to 

let him run the company, Leonard said, and planned to fire many of 

Entergy's managers. 



Broadhead said the buyout failed because FPL threatened to sue 

Entergy for providing conflicting earnings forecasts, prompting 

Entergy to back out of the agreement. The buyout would have created a 

utility company with 6.9 million customers, more than any U.S. rival. 



FPL has changed its compensation rules for future mergers and 

acquisitions, so that executives would be paid when the transaction 

closes, Kromer said. 



Shares of FPL Group, owner of the largest utility in Florida, rose 25 

cents to $61.46. They have fallen 14 percent this year. Shares of 

Entergy, owner of utilities in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and 

Arkansas, rose $1 to $39. They have fallen 7.8 percent this year. 



The compensation was tied to the performance of FPL's stock, Kromer 

said. FPL shares rose 68 percent in 2000, compared with 46 percent 

for the Standard & Poor's Electric Company index. Paul Evanson, 

president of FPL's utility unit, received about $10 million, Kromer 

said. Others who received lump-sum payments included: Lewis Hay III, 

president of trading unit FPL Energy Inc.; Dennis Coyle, secretary 

and general counsel; Lawrence Kelleher, senior vice president for 

human resources; Armando Olivera, FP&L senior vice president for 

power systems; Thomas Plunkett, president of FP&L's nuclear division; 

and Antonio Rodriguez, senior vice president of FP&L power 

generation. 

-----------



NRC considers plan to convert plutonium to reactor fuel

  

NEW YORK, April 3 (Reuters) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

said it was considering an application for construction of a mixed 

oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Department of Energy's 

Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. 



The MOX facility would convert surplus weapons-grade plutonium, 

supplied by the Department of Energy, into fuel for use in commercial 

nuclear reactors. 



Such use would render the plutonium essentially inaccessible and 

unattractive for weapons use. Commercial nuclear power plants in the 

United States currently use uranium as fuel; the mixed oxide fuel 

would be a combination of uranium and plutonium. 



The agency said in a statement late Monday it will offer an 

opportunity for a hearing to persons whose interests may be affected 

by this facility. 



The Department of Energy announced plans to construct a MOX fuel 

plant through a contract with the consortium of construction company 

Duke Engineering & Services, a unit of energy giant Duke Energy Corp. 

<DUK.N> of Raleigh, N.C., French nuclear measurement company COGEMA 

Inc., and construction company Stone & Webster. The consortium is 

known as DCS. 



DCS submitted an environmental report on the MOX facility last 

December, and requested authorization to construct the facility in 

February. 



Before deciding whether to authorize construction, the NRC will 

prepare an environmental impact statement and will conduct a 

technical evaluation of the application to determine whether it meets 

NRC requirements. 



The NRC said it will publish soon in the Federal Register a notice 

for a hearing on the construction of the MOX facility. 

-------------



EDF to Pay Cogema 30% Less to Process Nuclear Fuel, Paper Says

  

Paris, April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France, Europe's largest 

power producer, will pay 30 percent less for Cogema SA to process 

used nuclear fuel, enabling EDF to cancel a provision of about 1.8 

billion euros ($1.6 billion) from last year's accounts, La Tribune 

newspaper reported, citing an unnamed source. 



EDF, which uses nuclear stations to supply about 80 percent of 

France's electricity, will now pay Cogema about 4,500 French francs 

($614) to process a kilogram of fuel, down from about 6,500 francs, 

the daily newspaper said. 



Last week, EDF said 2000 profit fell 2.5 percent to 1.166 billion 

euros, while sales rose 7.4 percent. The French state- owned power 

company has said it wants to cut costs and increase profitability 

over coming years. 



Under the current processing contract, which expires in June, EDF had 

agreed to pay the equivalent of 10 years of fuel processing to 

finance the construction of a Cogema factory, in exchange for which 

Cogema would process 7,700 metric tons of fuel over 10 years, La 

Tribune said. 



Cogema, also owned by the French state, is the world's largest 

processor of nuclear fuel. 

-------------



TXU's Comanche Peak nuke outage not extended due to tubes

  

NEW YORK, April 4 (Reuters) - TXU Corp. <TXU.N> said Wednesday the 

outage at its 1,150-megawatt (MW) Comanche Peak 1 nuclear unit in 

Texas would not be extended despite degradation in some of the 

plant's steam generator tubes. 



"We had a goal at this refueling to inspect 100 percent of the steam 

tubes in Unit 1 and we have found pretty much what we expected. We 

have not been surprised," a spokesman for the company told Reuters. 



"We fully anticipate that Comanche Peak will run at full capacity 

once the refueling is over," the spokesman said, adding that the 

findings would not extend the outage at the Glen Rose, Texas plant. 



The unit shut March 24 and is slated to return to service in late 

April. 



The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said in its daily event 

report that several tubes in the plant's steam generator were found 

to be potentially degraded. 



Last year, a 1,250-MW unit at Reliant Energy's <REI.N> South Texas 

nuclear plant underwent steam generator repairs that took about 65-70 

days. 



A steam generator, which stands about 70 feet high and 40 feet wide, 

transfers heat from the reactor systems to the power-generating part 

of a nuclear power plant. 

--------------



Greenpeace to return to courts over nuclear fuel rods



4 April, 2001 - Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Greenpeace says it will return to the courts to block the  

reprocessing of Australian spent nuclear fuel rods in France. 



Last month, the environmental organisation won an order preventing  

the unloading of the Lucas Heights rods at the port of Cherburg,  but 

that has now been overturned in a French appeal court. 



Unloading of the spent fuel rods from Australia's only nuclear  

reactor will now go ahead after the French appeal court overturned  

last month's ruling to ban their entry, but Greenpeace says it will  

return to the lower court next week to argue they have been  imported 

illegally. 



Greenpeace says this dispute will not go away quickly, with a  

growing political awareness in France now over the issue of nuclear  

reprocessing following last week's massive demonstrations against  

the transportation of nuclear fuel back to Germany.

-------------



Ontario's nuclear plants exceed targets

  

TORONTO, April 3 (Reuters) - Ontario's three nuclear power plants 

received a passing grade for the month of February, a new report from 

the province's power supplier said on Tuesday. 



Ontario Power Generation, the province's primary generator and seller 

of electricity, said in its monthly nuclear report card that the 

plants operated at a capability factor of 96.1 percent in February, 

well above the target of 89.3 percent. 



The capability factor represents the amount of electricity the 

stations are capable of producing per month as a percentage of their 

potential capacity. 



The index is used as a measure of performance by the World 

Association of Nuclear Operators and measures 11 key statistics 

including safety and production. 



However, the company saw its nuclear performance index rating slip in 

the fourth quarter of last year to 83.3 percent, down slightly from 

the target of 84.5. 



But that did represent an increase of 0.1 percent from the third-

quarter of 2000. 

-------------



Nuclear energy on radar screen again 

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) Apr 3 -- Nuclear energy leaders gathered in 

San Francisco this week for a three-day forum to discuss the 

prospects for the atomic energy. 

While the energy source is widely reviled by environmentalists and no 

new U.S. nuclear plants have been built in years, energy shortages in 

California and the risk that they could spread to rest of the country 

are sparking renewed interest.

"It's amazing what happens when the lights don't stay on and we have 

some rolling blackouts," said Joe Colvin, president and CEO of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute a Washington-based policy organization that 

sponsored the conference. "The opportunities are basically 

unlimited... it's a tremendous time." 

Nuclear advocates tout its strong safety record and clear 

environmental advantages. Nuclear plants don't emit carbon dioxide, 

while coal generation, which still accounts for about 50 percent of 

U.S. electrical consumption, generates large amounts of the gas.

Lehman Brothers managing director James Asselstine said there would 

be a "fundamental change" in the next three to four years in how U.S. 

residents view nuclear power, making it an attractive and potentially 

valuable investment.

Asselstine highlighted the stable costs of nuclear power, especially 

when compared with sharply escalating natural gas prices. He also 

said that after a 25-year nuclear construction drought, within the 

next four years, "we'll see a large number of companies seek and 

attain permits." 

The emerging nuclear trend seems to favor a smaller number of power 

companies controlling the nuclear plants, concentrating expertise to 

build safer and more effective plants. 

Large power companies that have a nuclear component in their mix will 

be "well regarded by investors," AsNuclear energy on radar screen 

again SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Nuclear energy leaders gathered in 

San Francisco this week for a three-day forum to discuss the 

prospects for the atomic energy. While the energy source is widely 

reviled by environmentalists and no new U.S. nuclear plants have been 

built in years, energy shortages in California and the risk that they 

could spread to rest of the country are sparking renewed interest. 

"It's amazing what happens when the lights don't stay on and we have 

some rolling blackouts," said Joe Colvin, president and CEO of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute a Washington-based policy organization that 

sponsored the conference. "The opportunities are basically 

unlimited... it's a tremendous time." Nuclear advocates tout its 

strong safety record and clear environmental advantages. Nuclear 

plants don't emit carbon dioxide, while coal generation, which still 

accounts for about 50 percent of U.S. electrical consumption, 

generates large amounts of the gas. Lehman Brothers managing director 

James Asselstine said there would be a "fundamental change" in the 

next three to four years in how U.S. residents view nuclear power, 

making it an attractive and potentially valuable investment. 

Asselstine highlighted the stable costs of nuclear power, especially 

when compared with sharply escalating natural gas prices. He also 

said that after a 25-year nuclear construction drought, within the 

next four years, "we'll see a large number of companies seek and 

attain permits." The emerging nuclear trend seems to favor a smaller 

number of power companies controlling the nuclear plants, 

concentrating expertise to build safer and more effective plants. 

Large power companies that have a nuclear component in their mix will 

be "well regarded by investors," Asselstine said. Chicago-based 

Exelon(XC) currently has 17 nuclear units and is the largest nuclear 

power broker in the U.S. Currently, there are two operating nuclear 

power plants in California. PG&E Corp.s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

unit (PCG) owns the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. 

Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) 

own the San Onofre plant roughly midway between San Diego and Los 

Angeles. Combined, nuclear energy produces 14 percent of the state's 

electricity needs. And public opinion seems to be warming up to 

nuclear energy as well. According to Colvin, in January 2000, 31 

percent of Californian's said that it was "definitely" time to build 

more plants in the U.S. In Jan. 2001, 52 percent of Californians were 

in favor of nuclear construction, and last month, 66 percent of 

Californians polled approved nuclear. Currently, there are 103 

nuclear reactors operating in 31 states, generating about 20 percent 

of the country's energy needs. Since 1975, however, no permits to 

build nuclear plants have been issued in the U.S. But a nuclear 

renaissance remains speculative. All future projects and permits 

hinge on government approval and will surely spark heated debates on 

Capitol Hill and coffee shops across America. Environmental pros and 

cons John Ritch, Secretary General of the Uranium Institute, argued 

that nuclear power can offer environmental benefits. He outlined the 

risks of global warming including widespread fears that higher global 

temperatures caused by increased release of greenhouse gasses will 

take a catastrophic toll on the biosphere and the fatal implications 

if carbon dioxide emissions are not curbed. Ritch described a 

situation of political deadlock surrounding global warming. Thinkers 

from the right remain in denial about the problem, he said. On the 

other side, Ritch said the left was "short-sighted" about the 

solution, believing that alternative sources such as wind, solar and 

hydro could sustain humanity's current energy needs. "These ominous 

trends point toward nuclear." Ritch said. Vice President Dick Cheney, 

who is leading development of the Bush administration's energy 

policy, has said that nuclear energy deserves serious consideration 

as part of the solution to the nation's developing energy shortage. 

Among other reasons, the vice president has supported nuclear energy 

as one possible way to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Last week, 

President Bush retreated from the Kyoto Protocol, an international 

agreement to limit carbon dioxide and 

other gas emissions believed to contribute to global warming, because 

it did not hold emerging nations to similar standards. Ritch, a 

democrat, criticized Bush's move, saying that the U.S. had an 

opportunity to participate in a treaty reflecting its free-market 

economy beliefs. However, Ritch also disparaged the Kyoto Protocol's 

shortfall of not including nuclear as an environmentally friendly 

source of power. But despite its operational benefits, many 

environmentalists find fault with the logic of using nuclear energy 

to reduce gas emissions. The potential biological impacts and public 

safety concerns surrounding nuclear energy remain tremendous, with 

long-term effects of radiation and waste storage still unpredictable 

and not fully understood, they argue. Nuclear energy is still often 

regarded as a lurking danger. Memories of the 1979 Three Mile Island 

meltdown in Pennsylvania and the Soviet Union's Chernobyl disaster, 

have served to deter much consideration of nuclear power development, 

in the U.S. and much of Europe. "From the global warning problem, its 

probably a net plus," says Rich Ferguson, director of research for 

the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Technologies. "But my general reaction is, when the politicians are 

proposing to put one of these plants in their own hometown, I'll take 

them seriously." The political challenges surrounding nuclear power 

were demonstrated again last week in Europe where Green party 

protestors in Germany sought to delay a shipment of nuclear waste to 

a processing plant by blocking a train carrying the material.  

selstine said. Chicago-based 

Exelon({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=EXC"}X

C) currently has 17 nuclear units and is the largest nuclear power 

broker in the U.S. 

Currently, there are two operating nuclear power plants in 

California. PG&E Corp.s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit 

({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=PCG"}PCG) 

owns the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Southern 

California Edison 

({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=EIX"}EIX) 

and San Diego Gas & Electric 

({HYPERLINK "/tools/quotes/intChart.asp?siteid=aolpf&symb=SRE"}SRE) 

own the San Onofre plant roughly midway between San Diego and Los 

Angeles. Combined, nuclear energy produces 14 percent of the state's 

electricity needs.

And public opinion seems to be warming up to nuclear energy as well. 

According to Colvin, in January 2000, 31 percent of Californian's 

said that it was "definitely" time to build more plants in the U.S. 

In Jan. 2001, 52 percent of Californians were in favor of nuclear 

construction, and last month, 66 percent of Californians polled 

approved nuclear.

Currently, there are 103 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states, 

generating about 20 percent of the country's energy needs. Since 

1975, however, no permits to build nuclear plants have been issued in 

the U.S. 

But a nuclear renaissance remains speculative. All future projects 

and permits hinge on government approval and will surely spark heated 

debates on Capitol Hill and coffee shops across America.

Environmental pros and cons

John Ritch, Secretary General of the Uranium Institute, argued that 

nuclear power can offer environmental benefits. He outlined the risks 

of global warming including widespread fears that higher global 

temperatures caused by increased release of greenhouse gasses will 

take a catastrophic toll on the biosphere and the fatal implications 

if carbon dioxide emissions are not curbed.

Ritch described a situation of political deadlock surrounding global 

warming. Thinkers from the right remain in denial about the problem, 

he said. On the other side, Ritch said the left was "short-sighted" 

about the solution, believing that alternative sources such as wind, 

solar and hydro could sustain humanity's current energy needs. 

"These ominous trends point toward nuclear." Ritch said.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who is leading development of the Bush 

administration's energy policy, has said that nuclear energy deserves 

serious consideration as part of the solution to the nation's 

developing energy shortage.

Among other reasons, the vice president has supported nuclear energy 

as one possible way to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Last week, 

President Bush retreated from the Kyoto Protocol, an international 

agreement to limit carbon dioxide and other gas emissions believed to 

contribute to global warming, because it did not hold emerging 

nations to similar standards.

Ritch, a democrat, criticized Bush's move, saying that the U.S. had 

an opportunity to participate in a treaty reflecting its free-market 

economy beliefs. However, Ritch also disparaged the Kyoto Protocol's 

shortfall of not including nuclear as an environmentally friendly 

source of power.

But despite its operational benefits, many environmentalists find 

fault with the logic of using nuclear energy to reduce gas emissions. 

The potential biological impacts and public safety concerns 

surrounding nuclear energy remain tremendous, with long-term effects 

of radiation and waste storage still unpredictable and not fully 

understood, they argue. 

Nuclear energy is still often regarded as a lurking danger. Memories 

of the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania and the Soviet 

Union's Chernobyl disaster, have served to deter much consideration 

of nuclear power development, in the U.S. and much of Europe.

"From the global warning problem, its probably a net plus," says Rich 

Ferguson, director of research for the Sacramento-based Center for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "But my general 

reaction is, when the politicians are proposing to put one of these 

plants in their own hometown, I'll take them seriously."

The political challenges surrounding nuclear power were demonstrated 

again last week in Europe where Green party protestors in Germany 

sought to delay a shipment of nuclear waste to a processing plant by 

blocking a train carrying the material. 



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	

Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    

ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.			E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           

ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          

Costa Mesa, CA 92626



Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.