The tables presented below represent extracts from the report produced by NAC in 1995. The report was given to Greenpeace anonymously.

(Click on the items below to see the relative table)

• Reprocessing by Cogema at la Hague - 1998. UP-2 800 reprocessing plant - for French spent fuel.
• Reprocessing by Cogema at la Hague - 1998. UP3 reprocessing plant - for overseas spent fuel.
• Reprocessing by BNFL at Sellafield , Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant - 1998.

The two reprocessing companies British Nuclear Fuels and Cogema operate reprocessing plants at Sellafield and la Hague. They have contracts with both domestic and overseas electrical utilties. These utilities send their nuclear spent fuel from the reactors to Sellafield and la Hague, where the material is stored and then reprocessed. The tables below reveal the times when spent fuel from individual utilities and their reactors will be reprocessed.

What is most significant is that according to NAC, the information for the start and end of reprocessing of specific spent fule is the reprocessor - that is BNFL and Cogema.

For Cogema's details, Greenpeace feel quite confident that it is an accurate representation of what material will be reprocessed at the French dedicated plant - UP2-800 and the overseas dedicated plant - UP3 during 1998.

In contrast, the figures for Sellafield having been drafted in 1995, do not reflect the problems BNFL have had with the operation of THORP since start-up in 1994. Although the source of the information in the tables below is BNFL, delays in operation, including the total amount of spent fuel reprocessed so far mean that they are not on schedule for reprocessing fuel in the first ten years of their campaigns. In a report to be released by Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE), the actual cumulative figure of reprocessed fuel by THORP through 1997 was 1104 tonnes, whereas NAC had predicted 1475. Thus a shortfall of 370 tonnes - or more than half a years throughput of THORP. This clearly will have had consequences for the campaign schedule of THORP.

However, Greenpeace believe that the figures are still relevant as they indicate the plans that BNFL had for reprocessing. We have challenged BNFL to give confirmation of the campaign schedules, and to give-up its claim of commercial confidentiality.