GRI Index

Strategy and analysis

Organizational profile

G4-3

Name

Cameco Corporation

G4-4

Primary products or services
Operating structure

You’ll find detailed information about our operations and development projects and our products and services in our Annual information form, or you can read an overview here.

G4-5

Head office

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (Canada)

G4-6

Locations

Our operations

G4-7

Ownership
Annual information form

G4-8

Customers and markets
Annual information form

G4-9

Scale of operations
Annual information form

G4-10

Additional breakdown of workforce
Employment type Total
M F
Regular full time 2,466 686
Regular part time 19 50
Temporary full time 81 33
Temporary part time 1 2
Casual 6 4

G4-11

Employees covered by collective bargaining

855 of Cameco’s 3,348 employees are covered by collective bargaining.

G4-12

Description of supply chain

Our supply chain

G4-13

Significant changes during the reporting period (size, structure or ownership)
Annual information form

G4-14

Precautionary principle

In order to prevent unreasonable risk, Cameco is guided by the ALARA principle. In an environmental context, this requires all operational aspects be managed to ensure the risk to the environment is kept as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into account. This principle forms part of our environmental policy and is implemented through our environmental management systems, which identify significant environmental aspects and aid in setting environmental objectives and targets. Our aim is to continually improve our overall environmental performance.

G4-15

External principles and initiatives (economic, environmental and social)

Cameco is a member of the World Nuclear Association, and we comply with their Code of Ethics. We have reported to the Carbon Disclosure Project since 2007. We are also a member of the Mining Association of Canada and report annually through their Towards Sustainable Mining initiative. Cameco is also a four-time Gold Level company through the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business’ Progressive Aboriginal Relations initiative. We continue to evaluate other initiatives and principles that may add value to our business and advance our sustainable development program.

G4-16

Industry association and advocacy organization memberships
Industry organizations

Identified material aspects and boundaries

G4-17

Operating structure

You’ll find detailed information about our operations and development projects and our products and services in our Annual information form, or you can read an overview here

G4-18

Defining content (materiality, topics, stakeholders)

Materiality assessment and matrix

G4-19

Material aspects

Materiality assessment and matrix

G4-20

Boundary within organization

Boundary

G4-21

Boundary outside organization

Boundary

G4-22

Restatements from previous reports

Please see individual indicators in the GRI Index for restatements.

G4-23

Significant changes in scope, boundary or measurement methods from previous reporting periods

For this report, we have moved from GRI 3.1 to 4.0. This change has resulted in numerous indicators having different numbers or being amalgamated into a single indicator (i.e. EN3 and EN4 are now EN3). Other changes include:

  • Dropping CA3
  • Adding MM4 and LA12 as a result of our materiality assessment

GRI reporting and measures

Stakeholder engagement

Report profile

G4-28

Reporting period

1 Jan 2014 – 31 Dec 2015

For most indicators, we have provided five years of trend information (2010–2015). Please see the individual indicators in our GRI Index for specific details about each indicator.

G4-29

Date of most recent report

August 2014

G4-30

Reporting cycle

Once every two years

G4-31

Contact
Contact information

G4-32

In accordance

In accordance – core

G4-33

External assurance
Assurance statement

Governance

Ethics and integrity

Economic

EC1Direct economic value

This indicator provides information about Cameco’s annual revenue, operating costs, employee wages and benefits, payments to providers of capital, payments to governments, community investments and economic value retained.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenues 2,384,404 1,890,660 2,438,723 2,397,532 2,754,378
Operating Costs 1,201,406 1,184,863 1,634,941 1,523,724 1,783,222
Employee Wages and Benefits 653,582 453,242 462,164 464,021 507,767
Payments to Providers of Capital 206,550 201,587 224,073 236,344 227,820
Payments to Government 30,616 35,906 96,357 233,716 92,758
Community Investments 5,294 5,294 4,085 4,279 3,794
Economic Value Retained 286,956 9,768 17,103 -64,552 139,017

All figures in Canadian dollars (1,000s).

As of 2013, IFRS 11 – Joint Arrangements requires that we account for our former interest in Bruce Power Limited Partnership using equity accounting. Our results for 2012 and 2013 have been revised for comparative purposes; however, our results for 2011 have not been revised. We divested our interest in BPLP effective January 1, 2014.

Revenue by region

(Revenue is attributed to the geographic location based on the location of the entity providing the services)

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Canada 719,454 270,834 230,505 308,327 341,568
Germany — — 232,296 174,622 276,833
United States 1,664,950 1,619,826 1,975,922 1,914,583 2,135,977
Totals 2,384,404 1,890,660 2,438,723 2,397,532 2,754,378

All figures in Canadian dollars (1000s).

What it means

Revenue

In 2015, revenue increased over 2014 due to higher realized prices resulting from the weakening of the Canadian dollar, as well as higher sales volumes from our NUKEM segment.

Operating costs

The increase in operating costs for 2015 was due to higher sales volumes from our NUKEM segment, as well as an increase in the volume of purchased material in our uranium segment at higher prices.

Employee wages and benefits

Employee wages and benefits, including pension and share based compensation costs, increased from 2014 due to regular wage increases, a full year of operation at the Cigar Lake operation, and higher costs from our US operations as a result of the weakening of the Canadian dollar.

Payments to shareholders and bondholders (providers of capital)

Decreased due to early redemption fee of $12 million on the series C debentures expensed in 2014, partially offset by a slight increase in interest from a full year of charges from the debt issuance in June 2014.

Payments to governments (taxes)

Decreased due to the use of letters of credit (in place of cash payments) to secure 50% of the cash taxes and related interest amounts reassessed regarding the CRA litigation. See pages 29 – 33 of our annual MD&A for additional public disclosure.

Note

Canada, the United States, Australia and Kazakhstan are all either a candidate to or compliant with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

EC6Local hiring

This indicator provides information about the number of local employees at our operations in northern Saskatchewan, and the number of senior managers from those local communities. We focus specifically on northern Saskatchewan since it is a remote region where there are few employment options and employees would otherwise be flown in. Most of our other operations are located in larger centres where local hiring is not as critical an issue.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Local employees / total 761/1,505 756/1,531 747/1,500 794/1,600 811/1,629
% employees from local communities 50.60% 49.40% 49.80% 49.60% 49.80%
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Senior managers from local communities / total senior managers 1 of 33 2 of 28 2 of 28 2 of 26 2 of 24
% senior management from local communities 3.03% 7.10% 7.10% 7.70% 8.33%

What it means

Our preference is to hire locally wherever we operate, and that commitment is formalized in our corporate social responsibility policy. Over the years, we have had great success in building local capacity, especially in northern Saskatchewan where our efforts have made Cameco the leading industrial employer of aboriginal peoples in Canada. For several years, however, we have maintained a 50% level of local employment in the region despite growing numbers of local employees. As a result, Cameco is producing a new strategy at the corporate level to enact programs and policies that will see more local people employed, and in senior management positions.

Definitions

Senior manager – A manager or superintendent level employee.

Local employee – To be considered a local employee in northern Saskatchewan, you must be registered as a Resident of Saskatchewan’s North (a designation defined and managed by the Saskatchewan government) at the time of hire.

EC7Infrastructure and service investments

This indicator provides an overview of Cameco’s investments in infrastructure and services for local communities in Canada, the US and Kazakhstan.

a – Needs assessments
We have not completed a formal infrastructure needs assessment in our local communities.

b – Current (or expected) impact of infrastructure and service investments
Since 2009, Cameco has invested over $9 million in support of infrastructure improvement projects in local communities. Some of our more significant infrastructure investments in 2015 included:

Community Region Amount Infrastructure/Service
Saskatoon Saskatchewan $200,000 Ronald McDonald House
Saskatoon Saskatchewan $200,000 Remai Art Gallery
Athabasca Northern Saskatchewan $100,000 Youth Group Home
Wollaston/Hatchet Lake Northern Saskatchewan $100,000 Fish Plant
Saskatoon Saskatchewan $83,000 Cameco Community Kitchen Lighthouse
La Loche Northern Saskatchewan $60,000 Friendship Centre
Cobourg Ontario $50,000 Habitat for Humanity – Triplex Unit at 354 Alexandria Drive Cobourg

Northern Saskatchewan

  • Cameco provided $100,000 to the community of Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation for the development of the Northern Wild Fishery plant. The plant is owned and operated by the First Nation and provides employment for 24 community members.
  • Cameco provided $60,000 to the Friendship Centre in the northern Saskatchewan community of La Loche. This donation will help to build a youth centre within the building, which will help young people have a place of their own to call home. The youth centre will host programming with a focus on youth development in the areas of education, cultural enhancement and social well-being.

Ontario

  • Cameco has been a long-time supporter of Habitat for Humanity, an organization dedicated to building affordable housing for those without the means to purchase their own, in Cobourg and Port Hope, Ontario. Starting in 2015, Cameco re-upped its sponsorship and is providing $150,000 over three years to help the completion of a triplex unit in Cobourg, as well as semi-detached units in both Cobourg and Port Hope. Beyond providing dollars for these projects, Cameco employees are also integral to the process as they volunteer their time to help build the homes.

What it means

2015 saw a slight decrease in the total value of infrastructure related investments. Cameco does not specifically target infrastructure investments, but we receive many requests for investments from local communities to support these types of projects because many of these communities have infrastructure deficits.

We target four areas for support from our community investment fund:

  • youth
  • health and wellness
  • education and literacy
  • community development

About this indicator

The community investments measured and reported on in this indicator are also included in the community investment total in EC1.

For this indicator, we have not included any infrastructure that was built primarily for business purposes but that local communities may also benefit from (i.e. roads). We also do not count any community investment payments provided to communities we have signed collaboration agreements with in northern Saskatchewan.

EC8Indirect economic impact

This indicator provides information about our economic impact on particular geographic areas, including the secondary or indirect impact of Cameco’s operations.

Cameco has completed economic impact assessments in:

  • Northern Saskatchewan – The Economic Impact of Cameco Corporation on Saskatchewan with Emphasis on the North. By Eric Howe, Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan. Feb. 2009
  • Port Hope and Northumberland County, Ontario – Economic and Financial Impact Analysis of Cameco in Port Hope and Northumberland County. By Harry Kitchen, Department of Economics, Trent University. Nov. 2010
  • Wyoming – The Economic Impact of Cameco on Wyoming: Existing Uranium Operations and Planned Expansion. By David T. Taylor and Thomas Foulke, University of Wyoming, Sept. 2010
  • Nebraska – The Economic Impact of Cameco Resources’ Uranium Production on the Nebraska Economy. David T. Taylor and Thomas Foulke, University of Wyoming, Sept. 2010

Highlights from completed reports

Northern Saskatchewan

Overall, through direct and indirect activities, Cameco’s operations are responsible for 12.2% of the employment in northern Saskatchewan. As well, Cameco, through direct and indirect activities, is responsible for the employment of more than one aboriginal person in 20 in the province of Saskatchewan. Finally, for every one aboriginal person Cameco hires, aboriginal employment in Saskatchewan increases by a total of 2.1 employees by the end of the second year.

Port Hope and Northumberland County

In Port Hope, for every dollar a Cameco employee earns, $0.80 is earned by other workers in the local area through secondary spending effects. In Northumberland, this number is $1.40. Further to that, every dollar spent by Cameco in purchasing supplies from a firm in Northumberland or hiring a local tradesman generates $1.10 of additional revenue for other businesses in the area. In Port Hope, this number is $0.40 of additional revenue.

  • indirect employment: 981 jobs
  • indirect spending: $132 million

Wyoming

For every uranium job in the mining sector, there are 1.6 other jobs created elsewhere in the Wyoming economy. For every $1.00 of uranium job income in the mining sector, $1.20 of income is generated in other sectors of the Wyoming economy.

  • indirect employment: 144 jobs
  • indirect labour income (trades): $5 million
  • indirect economic activity: $16.8 million

Nebraska

For every direct uranium job in the mining sector, there are 1.8 other jobs created elsewhere in the Nebraska economy. For every $1.00 of uranium job income in the mining sector, $1.40 of income is generated in other sectors of the Nebraska economy.

  • indirect employment: 69 jobs
  • indirect labour income: $2.5 million
  • indirect economic activity: $7.8 million

What it means

Cameco is a major economic contributor everywhere we operate, both directly through salaries, wages, and local procurement, and indirectly through secondary employment and secondary economic activity.

EC9Local spending

This indicator shows the total dollar amount of goods and services procured from local suppliers for Cameco’s operating sites in northern Saskatchewan, Kazakhstan, Ontario and the U.S. each year from 2011 to 2015.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Kazakhstan (USD)          
Total procurement $14,022,608 $54,936,635 $46,561,825 $15,330,067 $8,975,450.88
Local procurement $12,848,565 $38,073,200 $42,583,560 $14,837,659 $8,250,858.63
% Local procurement 91% 69% 91% 97% 92%
N. Saskatchewan (CDN)          
Total procurement $533,877,071 $629,563,957 $670,539,245 $466,883,286 $392,905,203.87
Local procurement $393,191,740 $458,009,603 $451,619,699 $333,493,389 $299,965,204.90
% Local procurement 74% 73% 67% 71% 76%
Ontario (CDN)          
Total procurement $95,153,000 $151,589,250 $94,140,859 $89,808,641 $109,445,410.93
Local procurement $60,780,000 $92,466,587 $61,592,889 $48,749,026 $51,480,769.87
% Local procurement 64% 61% 65% 54% 47%
U.S. (USD)          
Total procurement N/A N/A N/A N/A $36,186,297.57
Local procurement N/A N/A N/A N/A $20,811,775.72
% Local procurement N/A N/A N/A N/A 58%
Total          
Total procurement $643,052,679 $836,089,842 $811,241,929 $572,021,994 $547,512,363.25
Local procurement $466,820,305 $588,549,390 $555,796,148 $397,080,074 $380,508,609.12
% Local procurement 73% 70% 69% 69% 70%

What it means

We are committed to using local suppliers wherever we operate. It is a commitment codified in our procurement of goods and services policy and exemplified by our spend in northern Saskatchewan where we have procured over $3 billion in services from local companies since 2005. While our overall local procurement spend was down in 2015 due to a lower capital spend in northern Saskatchewan, unfavorable USD/CAD exchange rates for some supplies at our Ontario operations, and a devaluation of local currency in Kazakhstan, that spend remained significant at $380 million.

Definitions

Local supplier – Is defined differently for each of Cameco’s operating locations as follows:

Northern Saskatchewan local supplier – A company or joint venture that is at least 50% owned by people or communities from the Northern Administrative District.

Ontario local supplier – One located in the province of Ontario.

Kazakhstan local supplier – A Kazakhstan producer of works and services and Kazakhstan producers of goods which is determined by the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) Law on subsoil and subsoil usage. A Kazakhstan producer of works and services is defined as citizens of the RK and/or legal entities established in accordance with laws of the RK which are located within the territory of the RK and engage no less than 95% of citizens of the RK of the total number of employees.

U.S. local supplier – A supplier located in the same state as the U.S. mine operations. For Crow Butte operations a local supplier is considered to be a supplier located in the state of Nebraska. For Smith Ranch-Highland operations a local supplier is considered to be a supplier located in the state of Wyoming.

Note

Northern Saskatchewan procurement spend includes services only.

Environment

EN3Energy consumption (within organization)

This indicator presents Cameco’s energy consumption, including energy consumed as fuel from non-renewable sources and energy consumed as electricity. Energy consumed as fuel from non-renewable sources is calculated by applying a fuel and country-specific energy content factor to the consumed volume of non-renewable energy sources at Cameco’s operations. These energy sources include propane, natural gas, diesel and gasoline. Published Canadian energy content factors were applied to energy sources consumed at our operation in Kazakhstan. Cameco does not utilize renewable energy sources directly. Energy consumed as electricity is calculated by applying a conversion factor of 0.0036 gigajoules per kilowatt hour (GJ/kwh) to the raw electricity consumption. Cameco does not sell energy as electricity, heating, cooling, or steam.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total fuel consumption from non-renewable sources (GJ) 3,106,120 3,195,967 3,142,650 3,164,400 2,918,830
Total electricity consumption (GJ) 1,790,096 1,925,894 2,067,435 2,202,909 2,148,446
Total energy consumption within the organization (GJ) 4,896,216 5,121,861 5,210,085 5,367,309 5,067,276

What it means

The energy consumed by Cameco from non-renewable sources was lower in 2015 as compared with the previous four years as a result of lower consumption of propane at Key Lake and McArthur River, and lower consumption of natural gas at the Port Hope Conversion Facility, Blind River Refinery and Saskatoon offices. Consumption of diesel and gasoline for mobile vehicles was also lower in 2015 as compared with previous years.

EN8Water withdrawal

This indicator presents the annual volume of water withdrawal in cubic metres (m3). Cameco withdraws water from surface water, collects groundwater, and also withdraws water from municipal water utilities in the areas where we operate. Rainwater that comes into contact with our operations is collected and stored, and is reflected in our water withdrawal volumes. Cameco does not withdraw wastewater directly from other organizations. Water withdrawal from our exploration activities is not included.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total intake (m3) 21,135,822 21,673,994 20,575,308 18,936,525 18,320,292

In 2013, we started including water withdrawn for use at our corporate offices in Saskatoon.

What it means

Trends in the annual volume of water withdrawn are similar to overall trends in the annual volume of water discharged. This is because the volume of water withdrawn is largely estimated based on the volume of water discharged.

In 2015, we continued the downward trend of water withdrawal seen since 2012. Much of this decrease is attributed to lower quantities of water discharged at Key Lake.

MM1Operational Footprint

This indicator measures the amount of Cameco’s land currently in use and not yet rehabilitated. It does not include land we own/lease that has not been disturbed.

Total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated (hectares)
  2012 2013 2014 2015
Year End Total 3,101 3,121 3,253 3,493
Land Disturbed   20 132 240

This indicator excludes advanced non-operational sites (Kintyre, Yeelirrie, Millennium), office structures, exploration activities, operations in which Cameco does not have operational control, or rented facilities that Cameco operates (Cobourg).

What it means

Over half of Cameco’s disturbed lands are from our ISR operations, which use a much less invasive process than conventional mines in terms of surface disturbance. Our operations in northern Saskatchewan, which include our flagship operations, benefit from a very low operational footprint which is, nevertheless, able to produce a product that provides a large amount of potential energy. For example, in 2015, our McArthur River and Cigar Lake operations produced enough uranium to meet the electrical needs of every Canadian household for four years – all from operations with a surface area footprint of less than two square miles.

In 2015, our operational footprint increased as a result of expansion at some of our operations. No lands were rehabilitated in 2015.

Definitions

The definition of land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated is dependent on the jurisdiction of the operation as listed below:

  • In Saskatchewan, total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated is defined as “Developed” land
  • In the United States, total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated is defined as “Affected Area”
  • For Ontario, total land disturbed is equal to the licensed area of the facility
  • For Kazakhstan, total land disturbed is equal to the area of land impacted

Note

We have revised the historical data reported for this indicator as we discovered an error in the calculation for a specific site that added a significant subtotal into the calculation, effectively doubling the total amount of disturbed land for that operation. The figures have been corrected for all previous years.

EN15Direct GHG emissions (by weight)

This indicator presents Cameco’s scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is used to compare the emissions from various GHG sources based on their global warming potential (GWP). Cameco adopted the GWPs published by the International Panel on Climate Change in their Fourth Assessment Report for 2015.

Cameco’s significant sources of scope 1 GHG emissions include those generated by the consumption of fuel from non-renewable sources and industrial processes. Emissions factors that are country and fuel-specific are used to convert the fossil fuels consumed to GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). For our Canadian and Kazakhstan operations, we have used emission factors published by Environment Canada in 2016 for Canada’s National Inventory Report 1990 – 2014 of GHG emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For our U.S. operations, we use the emission factors published by the US EPA in the Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories November 2015 document.

Corporate totals of GHG emissions (tonnes CO2e)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Scope 1 (EN15) 188,073 195,257 195,030 198,136 181,163

What it means

2015 scope 1 GHG emissions were lower in 2015 as compared with 2014 as a result of reduced consumption of propane at Key Lake and McArthur River, and natural gas at the Port Hope Conversion Facility, Blind River Refinery and Saskatoon offices. Consumption of diesel and gasoline for mobile vehicles was also lower in 2015 as compared with previous years.

EN16Indirect GHG emissions (by weight)

This indicator presents Cameco’s scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is used to compare the emissions from various GHG sources based on their global warming potential (GWP). Cameco adopted the GWPs published by the International Panel on Climate Change in their Fourth Assessment Report for 2015.

Scope 2 GHG emissions are calculated by applying a utility or region-specific emission factor to the amount of electricity purchased from that utility or region, which is determined through utility invoices.

Corporate totals of GHG emissions (tonnes CO2e)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Scope 2 (EN16) 303,340 317,996 324,233 350,135 340,671

What it means

Our 2015 scope 2 GHG emissions were lower in 2015 as compared with 2014 as a result of both lower electricity consumption in 2015, and lower emission factors for electricity generated in Ontario and the RMPA eGrid subregion in the United States where our ISR mining facilities are located.

EN21Air emissions (by type and weight)

This indicator presents the total air emissions from our Canadian operations of nitrogen oxides (NOx expressed as NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds, total particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), ammonia (NH3), uranium (U) and hydrogen fluoride. Air emissions from our in situ recovery operations in the United States and Kazakhstan are not material for this indicator and are not included.

Air emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs, PM, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 are calculated using the guidance provided by Environment Canada through the National Pollutant Release Inventory. The total air emissions for these constituents include air emissions released through point sources such as process stacks, storage and handling, fugitive emissions, and as a result of road dust. Air emissions of uranium and hydrogen fluoride include air emissions released through point sources.

Air emissions (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Oxides of Nitrogen NOx (expressed as NO2) 605 716 631 589 484
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 316 317 278 267 127
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 241 210 458 484 453
Volatile Organic Compounds 294 360 258 235 238
Total Particulate Matter 1,190 793 765 788 789
PM10 – Particulate Matter <= 10 microns 285 278 300 298 296
PM2.5 – Particulate Matter <= 2.5 microns 128 76 74 67 62
Ammonia (NH3) 76 55 53 54 52
Uranium 0.60 0.10 0.15 0.50 0.10
Hydrogen Fluoride 0.74 0.64 0.72 0.38 0.43

What it means

We are committed to keeping our air emissions low and well within all regulatory limits. Our emissions trend over the past five years is the result of both normal variations in our processes, production output year-to-year, and changes we have made to our processes in order to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, uranium and hydrogen fluoride.

EN22Water discharge (by quality and destination)

This indicator presents the annual volume of planned water discharge in cubic metres (m3) by destination (i.e. surface water, municipal treatment facilities, land, evaporation pond, or deep disposal well) and treatment method (i.e. treated by Cameco, treated by municipal authorities, clean, or untreated). Cameco does not re-use water produced by other organizations.

This indicator also includes information about the quality of the water we discharge to surface water bodies, land application via irrigation, and municipal treatment facilities. We report the total amount of certain materials discharged over the year in kilograms (kg). The totals are calculated by multiplying the volume of water discharge by the concentration of the constituent in water. An increase may mean either an increase in water flow or an increase in the constituent concentration in the water.

Annual volume (m3)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Discharge of clean diverted water to surface water 5,798,935 5,826,137 5,648,676 5,191,539 5,374,546
Discharge of water to municipal treatment facilities 187,591 209,161 320,285 403,267 172,798
Discharge of clean treated water to surface water 13,145,992 13,325,241 12,654,710 11,758,010 11,385,931
Discharge of clean treated water to land application via irrigation 109,742 110,273 144,095 139,877 80,423
Discharge of water to deep disposal well 822,463 877,476 1,135,900 956,554 823,646
Discharge of water to evaporation pond ND 60,377 45,701 26,570 22,787
Discharged to surface water (kg)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Arsenic 23.9 30.1 38.5 37.6 40.2
Copper 24.9 30.0 41.2 39.3 47.2
Lead 13.8 12.8 13.5 13.0 10.5
Molybdenum 2,423.8 2,903.7 1,985.9 1,824.6 1,605.9
Nickel 219.8 219.1 271.6 221.4 165.4
Radium-226* 193.9 212.9 241.8 206.1 268.3
Selenium 45.0 45.0 45.7 42.6 40.0
Total suspended solids 14,069.7 14,734.8 15,632.9 13,956.6 14,344.0
Uranium 450.4 322.4 319.2 248.6 303.0
Zinc 57.4 48.9 37.4 46.8 27.5
*Radium-226 is reported in MBq
Discharged to municipal treatment facilities (kg)
Total Uranium 5.0 3.4 3.6 8.1 3.9
Treated water discharged to land application via irrigation (kg)
Arsenic 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Selenium 1.5 1.0 0.8 2.2 0.6
Uranium 39.1 26.8 28.3 77.7 39.3

What it means

Water discharge quantity:

The total volume of clean water discharged to surface water was higher in 2015 as compared with 2014, but remained within the range of variation in volume of clean water discharged over the five-year period.

Discharges of water to municipal treatment facilities were significantly lower in 2015 as compared with previous years, which is a result of the implementation of the powerhouse effluent pH control system at the Port Hope Conversion Facility in 2014.

The total discharge of clean treated water to surface water was slightly lower in 2015 as compared with 2014, primarily due to a lower volume of clean treated water discharged from the Key Lake operation and Blind River Refinery in 2014.

The total discharge of water to deep disposal was substantially lower in 2015 as compared with 2014 as a result of one of the deep disposal wells at Smith Ranch-Highland being out of operation for most of the year.

The total discharge of clean treated water to land via irrigation was lower in 2015 as compared with 2014. This is attributed to the water treatment plant being out of operation for part of the year.

Water discharge quality

In 2015, the quality of the clean treated water discharged to surface water complied with all applicable regulatory limits. Cameco remains focused on improving the quality of our clean treated water discharged to surface water. This focus has involved improvement in our water management practices and treatment technologies, and has resulted in a significant decline in the mass loadings of molybdenum, selenium and uranium in treated water discharged to surface water over the past number of years.

EN23Waste

This indicator presents the total amount of non-hazardous, hazardous, and low-level radioactive waste we generate. Cameco does not generate intermediate or high level radioactive waste.

The total amount of waste generated in each category is separated and presented by disposal method: diverted, landfilled or stored on site. Diverted materials include those that are recycled, reused, incinerated, repurposed or reprocessed. We separate waste into these disposal categories using internal tracking systems that track the inventory of waste on site and the transfer of waste off site. The amount of waste transferred off site is confirmed through information provided by the receiving organization.

Total waste (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Generated 22,642 24,973 18,963 17,610 19,258
Diverted 2,833 4,149 3,311 3,404 5,640
Landfilled or stored 19,809 20,824 15,652 14,206 13,618
Overall rate of diversion (%) 13% 17% 17% 19% 29%
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Generated 8,442 6,159 5,460 5,164 7,063
Diverted 1,468 2,252 1,541 2,051 3,762
Landfilled or stored 6,974 3,907 3,919 3,113 3,302
Rate of diversion (%) 17% 37% 28% 40% 53%
Low level radioactive waste (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Generated 13,930 18,442 13,167 11,976 11,651
Diverted 1,177 1,626 1,546 970 1,507
Landfilled or stored 12,754 16,815 11,621 11,006 10,144
Rate of diversion (%) 8% 9% 12% 8% 13%
Hazardous waste (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Generated 270 373 336 470 543
Diverted 188 271 223 383 371
Landfilled 81 102 112 87 172
Rate of diversion (%) 70% 73% 67% 82% 68%

What it means

Overall, the amount of waste we generated in 2015 was higher than the previous year. This is primarily associated with an increase in the amount of non-hazardous waste generated in 2015 due to ongoing site clean-up activities. The waste generated by ongoing site clean-up activities was primarily recyclable materials that was diverted from landfill in 2015.

In 2015, we improved our tracking of low level radioactive waste that we repurpose for use in backfill underground. The increase in low level radioactive waste diverted that is reflected in 2015 is due to the improved tracking of this material.

As well, hazardous waste quantities were slightly higher than the previous year and the five-year average. Hazardous waste is shipped to or picked up by an approved receiver once an adequate quantity is available. Some of the inter-annual variation in the amount of this waste is related to this practice.

Definitions

Non-hazardous waste – Includes domestic, commercial and industrial materials that become waste, such as plastic, tin, paper and cardboard, tires, metal, wood pallets, kitchen cooking oil and wood.

Low level radioactive waste – Includes industrial materials that have become contaminated with radioactive material and are more radioactive than clearance levels and exemption quantities allow. This type of waste loses most or its entire radioactivity within 300 years, and includes industrial materials such as protective equipment, paper, cardboard, equipment, tools, metal, plastic, concrete, sand, sludges, insulation and wood. The low-level radioactive waste we generate does not typically require heavy shielding during handling and interim storage. Shielding refers to a barrier (like a concrete wall or protective clothing) between stored waste and nuclear energy workers.

Hazardous waste – Includes hazardous recyclable materials, and generally means a waste with hazardous properties that may have potential effects to human health of the environment. The hazardous waste we generate includes materials such as used petroleum fuels (oil, diesel, gas), batteries, paint and paint related materials, compressed gas cylinders and light fixtures.

Note

We have revised our historical data for this indicator as we have added liquid wastes from our Key Lake operation to our low level radioactive waste category. This has resulted in an increase in our historic waste numbers.

MM3Mine waste (overburden, rock, tailings, sludges)

This indicator provides information about the amount of solid waste generated annually in the form of tailings, water treatment sludge and slime, the net annual change in our unreclaimed waste rock inventory (including mineralized and non-mineralized rock), and the total mine waste generated for each year. We do not disclose any risk assessments associated with this indicator, although all are complete and provided to our regulators.

Mine waste (tonnes)
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual tailings and process wastes generated 578,440 683,134 696,204 667,128 595,717
Annual change in unreclaimed waste rock inventory 47,677 2,998,021 -8,629,743 -1,282,110 -37,541
Net of wastes created and reclaimed 626,117 3,681,155 -8,048,632 -614,982 558,176

What it means

The amount of tailings and process wastes we produce depends primarily on production rates and ore grades. When we expand production, as we have been doing in recent years, our tailings and waste generally increase. This is also the case when ore grades are low since we must process more rock to obtain the same amount of uranium. However, our currently operating mines are either ISR mines, which do not produce waste rock, or underground mines, which produce very little waste rock compared to open-pit mines. We also look for ways to reduce waste rock by repurposing it as underground backfill or for road construction, for example. In some years, this has resulted in a net decrease in inventory.

Since 2012, we have seen significant variance in our inventory of unreclaimed waste rock. Changes in waste rock inventory from year to year are variable and depend on the quantity of waste rock generated by mining operations versus the quantity of waste rock used in our processes, and/or transferred into a reclaimed state. In 2015, a small reduction (about 55,000 metres cubed) was recorded in our unreclaimed waste rock inventory that was associated with consumption of mineralized waste in our milling processes.

Note

We have adjusted the annual change in un-reclaimed waste rock inventory for 2012-2014 as a result of a re-adjustment to the Key Lake Gaertner non-mineralized waste rock pile.

EN24Significant incidents (total number and volume)

This indicator provides information about the number of significant environmental incidents. We determine significance based on the incident’s actual or potential environmental impact, or by the level of regulatory and public concern about it.

For significant incidents, we report the total quantity of material released and any associated impacts.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total number 0 0 0 0 0
Quantity 0 0 0 0 0

What it means

Cameco has been very focused on minimizing environmental incidents for many years now, and has used the number of environmental incidents as the main measure for determining environmental performance related to employee and officer compensation. As such, the number of reportable environmental incidents has improved markedly, and Cameco has not had a significant environmental incident since 2008. Beginning in 2016, the corporate environmental objective has transitioned away from being based on incidents to being based on significant environmental aspects. However, there is an overriding compensation target that affects employee and executive compensation if we sustain a significant environmental incident.

Definitions

Significant environmental incident – Any environmental incident that results in moderate or significant environmental impacts or current and future remediation costs of greater than $1 million, or which have a reasonable potential to result in significant negative impact on the company’s reputation with our major stakeholders.

EN29Significant environmental fines

This indicator provides information on the number of “significant environmental fines” that we received for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as the total number of “non-monetary sanctions.” It does not include significant environmental fines or non-monetary sanctions that are in the appeals process or imposed through national or international dispute resolution mechanisms.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Significant environmental fines 2 0 0 0 0
Non-monetary sanctions N/A 4 2 3 0

What it means

In 2015, none of Cameco’s operations received any significant environmental fines or non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Definitions

Significant environmental fine – Fines that exceed CDN $100,000 paid by Cameco or a controlled subsidiary in Canada, the US or Kazakhstan to a government authority for non-compliance with environmental laws or regulations.

Non-monetary sanctions – An administrative or judicial sanction levied against Cameco or a controlled subsidiary for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Non-monetary sanctions include, but are not limited to, formal actions issued by regulatory authorities at the level of notices of violation or notices of contravention and above pursuant to a graduated enforcement regime.

Note

We did not track non-monetary sanctions prior to 2012.

Social: Labour Practices and Decent Work

LA1Hiring and turnover (by age group, gender)

This indicator provides information about our annual rates of hiring and turnover, and the total number of employees who are hired or leave the organization, by gender and age group.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
New hires Year end Rate New hires Year end Rate New hires Year end Rate New hires Year end Rate New hires Year end Rate
252 2,566 7.54% 228 2,628 6.65% 209 2,535 6.38% 124 2,481 3.87% 147 2,485 4.56%
80 777 2.39% 73 803 2.13% 42 739 1.28% 49 724 1.53% 43 736 1.33%
161 964 4.82% 152 994 4.43% 118 920 3.60% 85 865 2.65% 92 835 2.86%
152 1,914 4.55% 133 1,923 3.88% 114 1,863 3.48% 87 1,822 2.71% 86 1,827 2.67%
19 465 0.57% 16 514 0.47% 19 491 0.58% 1 518 0.03% 12 559 0.37%
332 3343 9.93% 301 3431 8.77% 251 3274 7.67% 173 3205 5.40% 190 3221 5.90%
 
 
Male
Female
Up to 35
36-55
56+
Total
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Turnover Year End Rate Turnover Year End Rate Turnover Year End Rate Turnover Year End Rate Turnover Year End Rate
214 2,566 6.40% 200 2,628 5.83% 338 2,535 10.32% 208 2,481 6.49% 157 2,485 4.87%
51 777 1.53% 55 803 1.60% 116 739 3.54% 70 724 2.18% 55 736 1.71%
81 964 2.42% 78 994 2.27% 112 920 3.42% 92 865 2.87% 66 835 2.05%
116 1,914 3.47% 142 1,923 4.14% 207 1,863 6.32% 113 1,822 3.53% 76 1,827 2.36%
68 465 2.03% 35 514 1.02% 135 491 4.12% 73 518 2.28% 70 559 2.17%
265 3343 7.93% 255 3431 7.43% 454 3274 13.87% 278 3205 8.67% 212 3221 6.58%
 
 
Male
Female
Up to 35
36-55
56+
Total

Figures are as of December 31 each year. For this indicator, we do not include temporary, casual or JV Inkai (Kazakhstan) employees. At the end of 2015, JV Inkai employed 633 people.

What it means

Cameco’s turnover rate continued to decline from the high point in 2013 when restructuring took place at our operations. In fact, our 2015 number of 6.58% was our lowest since we started reporting in 2009.

Definitions

Turnover – The number of employees who resign, are dismissed or retire while employed by Cameco each year.

Note:

We do not provide any regional breakdowns on this information at this time.

We have also made restatements for all our subcategories (e.g. Female TO) for this indicator as we were previously using a calculation that over-inflated these numbers.

MM4Strikes and lockouts (over 1 week in duration)

This indicator provides information on the number of strikes and lockouts at our unionized sites in any given year that are over one week in duration.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of strikes over 1 week 0 0 0 1 0
Number of lock-outs over 1 week 0 0 0 1 0

What it means

There were no strikes or lockouts at any of Cameco’s unionized sites in 2015.

The following sites have collective bargaining agreements:

  • Key Lake
  • McArthur River
  • Port Hope Conversion Facility
  • Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc. (Port Hope and Cobourg)

Strike – A strike is a collective action by employees to stop or curtail work.

Section 1 (1) of the Canadian Labour Relations Act, 1995 defines a strike as a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output.

Lockout – A lockout occurs when an employer closes a workplace, suspends work or refuses to continue employing a number of employees during a labour dispute.

Section 1 (1) of the Canadian Labour Relations Act, 1995 defines a lockout as the closing of a place of employment, a suspension of work or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ a number of employees, with a view to compel or induce the employees, or to aid another employer to compel or induce that employer's employees, to refrain from exercising any rights or privileges under this Act or to agree to provisions or changes in provisions respecting terms or conditions of employment or the rights, privileges or duties of the employer, an employers’ organization, the trade union, or the employees.

LA5Health and safety committees

This indicator shows the number and percentage of Cameco’s workers who are represented by formal management-worker occupational health and safety (OHS) committees. These committees help monitor and advise on occupational health and safety programs.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total workers 3,474 3,574 3,345 3,324 3,348
Workers represented by joint committees 3,474 3,574 3,345 3,324 3,348
% of workers represented in joint committees 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Figures are as of December 31 each year. JV Inkai (Kazakhstan) workforce numbers (633 at the end of 2015) are not represented in the totals, although all employees there are represented in a formal OHS committee.

What it means

All of Cameco’s employees in Canada, the US, Kazakhstan and Australia are represented by OHS committees. These committees operate at both the site level and at our corporate offices.

LA6Injury frequency, missed work

This indicator provides information about Cameco’s rates of absenteeism, lost-time injuries (LTI) and work-related fatalities. For lost-time injuries and fatalities, we include both employees and contractors in our numbers. Minor updates to the LTI rate may be made to previous years on occasion if past injuries are reclassified as the worker’s condition changes, e.g. a minor injury worsens, resulting in lost time at a later date.

We do not report absentee rates for Australia or Kazakhstan, nor do we report occupational disease rates. Absentee rates also do not include contractors to Cameco.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Absentee rate (%) 3.39% 3.55% 3.35% 3.59% 3.56%
LTI rate (per 200,000) 0.32 0.11 0.19 0.17 0.21
# of fatalities 0 0 0 0 0

What it means

Cameco has a strong safety culture and maintains a safe working environment for all of its employees. Our LTI rate continues be very low, and while higher than in previous years, continues to follow a stable to somewhat declining trend. Most exemplary is our Blind River operation, which in 2015 achieved an astounding nine years LTI free, followed closely by Crow Butte at eight years LTI free. Four additional operations have achieved at least one year LTI free.

Definitions

Lost-time injury – A work-related injury requiring professional medical assessment and treatment, and where the employee is not able to return to work for their next scheduled shift. If there is uncertainty whether the lost-time injury is work related, Cameco sites must use the workers compensation decision to accept or deny the claim as the decision criteria. Regulatory acceptance of the lost-time injury claim requires the site to count the injury as work-related.

Lost-time injury rate – Based on the total number of lost-time injuries, you can compute the incidence rate using the following formula: lost-time injury rate = # of LTI cases x (200,000 hours/annual hours worked).

Note

At this time, Cameco only reports this information at a global level. We also do not report our injury rate, occupational disease rate or our lost day rate at this time.

LA11Performance and career development reviews (by gender)

This indicator provides information about the number and percentage of employees who receive formal performance appraisals and career development reviews.

Year # of employees # of employees who receive performance reviews % of employees who receive performance reviews
2011 M 2,651 M 1,845 M 69.60%
  F 823 F 716 F 87.00%
2012 M 2,715 M 1,909 M 70.31%
  F 859 F 758 F 88.24%
2013 M 2,581 M 1,811 M 70.17%
  F 764 F 668 F 87.43%
2014 M 2,559 M 1,744 M 68.15%
  F 765 F 654 F 85.49%
2015 M 2,573 M 1,768 M 68.71%
  F 775 F 667 F 86.06%

Figures are as of December 31 each year. JV Inkai (Kazakhstan) employed 633 at the end of 2015, but is not included in this indicator.

What it means

Cameco’s performance management system is guided by four key principles: communication, mutual involvement, consistency and continual improvement. All of our non-unionized employees undertake three formal performance reviews each year, which include career development discussions. The numbers above include our unionized employees, who do not undergo performance reviews. This also explains some of the discrepancies between male and female participation as more of our unionized workforce is male.

Definitions

Performance review – A formal meeting between an employee and his or her supervisor to review and discuss the employee’s performance against goals and expectations established at the start of the year by employees and supervisors.

LA12Diversity and equal opportunity

This indicator provides information on our workplace diversity, including the number and percentage of women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities in our workforce.

Year # of employees Women Aboriginal Visible minority Persons with disabilities
2011 3,170 768 733 133 78
  24.23% 23.12% 4.20% 2.46%
2012 3,239 796 740 157 77
  24.58% 22.85% 4.85% 2.38%
2013 3,045 705 722 148 69
  23.15% 23.71% 4.86% 2.27%
2014 3,074 723 780 140 63
  23.52% 25.37% 4.55% 2.05%
2015 3,106 733 792 138 60
  23.60% 25.50% 4.44% 1.93%

Figures are as of December 31 each year. This indicator only includes our Canadian operations, as other jurisdictions are not (at this time) required to collect or maintain diversity information on employees.

What it means

Cameco is the leading industrial employer of aboriginal peoples in Canada, with First Nations and Metis people making up the majority of the workforce at our northern Saskatchewan operations. While proud of this achievement, we have not seen the number of residents of Saskatchewan’s north (RSNs), the majority of whom are aboriginal, move above 50% of our northern workforce in many years. As well, the overall number and percentage of women who work at Cameco has been trending downward since 2012.

To try to improve on these numbers, and on our workforce diversity as a whole, Cameco’s board recently approved a diversity/inclusion compensable target within our corporate objectives that has three components:

  • Initiate a long-term diversity and inclusion plan for Cameco that outlines specific actions for management to increase diversity. This will involve, among other things, reviewing employment systems, policies and practices to identify barriers to participation and representation, removing identified barriers and creating a culture of inclusion, setting baseline and long-term participation and representation goals, and identifying quantitative and qualitative measures to assess the effectiveness of the actions undertaken.
  • Revitalize our commitments to RSNs by reviewing the education and experience requirements for roles, reviewing apprenticeship and workplace education programs at our northern Saskatchewan operations, and establishing accountability measures on Cameco’s RSN commitments.
  • Complete primary research for the gender diversity project initiated by senior management in 2015 to identify common themes and workplace issues and to establish and address priority issues.

Definitions

Aboriginal – An aboriginal person is a North American Indian or a member of the First Nation, a Metis or Inuit. North American Indians or members of a First Nation include status, treaty or registered Indians, as well as non-status and non-registered Indians.

Visible minority – A person declared as visible minority are persons, other than aboriginal persons, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour, regardless of birthplace.

Persons with disabilities – Persons who have a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric or learning impairment who:

  • consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment
  • believe that an employer or potential employer is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment
  • persons whose functional limitations owing to their impairment have been accommodated in their current job or workplace

Social: Human Rights

HR8Disputes related to indigenous rights

This indicator provides information about the total number of incidents registered through formal means related to indigenous rights.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
# of incidents registered through formal means 0 0 1 0 0

What it means

There were no disputes related to indigenous rights in 2015. Cameco has a long history working with indigenous groups wherever we operate, exemplified by our standing as Canada’s largest industrial employer of aboriginal peoples and the numerous mutually beneficial agreements we have with indigenous peoples in Australia and North America.

Definitions

Incident registered by formal means – Formal allegation of a specific indigenous rights infringement caused by (or expected to result from) a Cameco project or activity. This allegation can take the form of:

  • a complaint filed through a judicial proceeding
  • a formal objection filed with the regulator
  • activities identified by Cameco’s corporate responsibility team as failing to comply with Cameco’s internal policy directives

MM5Proximity to indigenous territories

This indicator provides information about the number of Cameco mining and processing operating sites on (or adjacent to) indigenous territories, as well as the percentage of formal agreements in relation to the overall number of our operating sites that are on or adjacent to an indigenous territory.

Operating sites on or adjacent to indigenous territories:

  • four operating Cameco sites in northern Saskatchewan on traditional territory (all of these operations have formal agreements in place with local indigenous communities)
  • one operating Cameco site in Ontario adjacent to indigenous lands (this operation does not have a formal agreement in place)

What it means

In northern Saskatchewan, Cameco has entered into four formal agreements with indigenous communities that cover the four operating sites we have on traditional territory. All of these agreements provide indigenous communities with workforce and business development programs, dedicated community engagement programs, community investment monies and mechanisms to collaborate around environmental stewardship.

Agreement Participants What is involved

Impact Management Agreement
(1999)
  • The communities of the Athabasca Basin (including Black Lake and Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nations, along with the four local northern municipalities)
  • Hatchet Lake First Nation participated in the programming implementation of the agreement but was not a signatory
  • Cameco, Areva

Resulted in the creation of the Athabasca Working Group (AWG), which has representation from seven Athabasca communities and provides the communities in northern Saskatchewan and industry the added assurance of the standards and safeguards of uranium operations.

We meet quarterly with the AWG to exchange information and to discuss future activities.

Collaboration Agreements (CAs)
(2012, 2013)
  • English River First Nation (EFRN)
  • the northern village of Pinehouse and the Metis Local situated there
  • Cameco, Areva

The agreements codify the relationships we’ve had in these communities for over 25 years and reaffirm our commitment as partners in employment, business development and community investment. They also provide a more predictable model of funding over the long term so communities will have greater ability to plan for community investment initiatives. The long-term nature of the agreements also means more opportunity in the form of jobs through business contracts defined in the agreements, and calls for an increase in workforce development initiatives such as scholarships and training opportunities.

Participation Agreement
(2014)
  • Cree community of Southend, which is part of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation
  • Cameco

Provides assistance to Southend to increase their business and workforce capacity and start to make more meaningful inroads into the mining industry.

Though not considered here as “formal agreements,” Cameco also has:

  • several trappers compensation agreements with trappers in northern Saskatchewan who continue to trap on or near our operating sites. These agreements encourage trappers to continue trapping, provide them with a yearly cash distribution, and, for some, an allotment of oil and/or gasoline
  • a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Mississauga First Nation in relation to Cameco’s Blind River refinery in Ontario. The MOU commits the parties to work together towards mutual gain, and focuses primarily on socio-economic development projects related to youth, education, health and wellness, and community development

Definitions

Adjacent – The tenure boundaries of an applicable Cameco operating site are physically contiguous with the boundaries of an indigenous territory.

Indigenous territory – can mean two things:

  • Indigenous lands – Land in relation to which indigenous peoples hold or formally claim title or an equivalent interest (e.g. “reserve” land in Canada). This may include areas where ownership is claimed by multiple parties
  • Traditional territory – Land on which indigenous peoples (a) historically exercised traditional activities (e.g. hunting, fishing, trapping or gathering) and (b) still do today

Society

SO1Community engagement

This indicator provides information about the number and percentage of Cameco operations in Canada, the US and Kazakhstan that have local community engagement activities, impact assessments and development programs.

Community engagement activities

This includes various local community engagement activities that we carry out in relation to our “supportive communities” measure of success. This would include activities such as community visits, community meetings, events, web materials, investments, print publications, presentations and others.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of operations with community engagement activities 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10
% of operations with community engagement activities 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Impact assessments

These are socio-economic impact assessments conducted by operations either to meet requirements for environmental impact assessments and/or for standalone local economic impact assessments. They are conducted as required and span an extended timeframe, often over several years.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of operations with impact assessments 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10
% of operations with impact assessments 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Development programs

Community development programs are formalized programs or agreements developed with local communities, groups and/or organizations, such as impact management agreements and/or memorandums of understanding. These are developed as required and often span an extended timeframe, often over several years.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of operations with development programs 6/10 8/10 8/10 8/10 8/10
% of operations with development programs 60% 80% 80% 80% 80%

What it means

Community engagement is an important aspect of operational activities across our sites and is a central component of Cameco’s five pillar strategy and all the agreements we have with indigenous communities across our operations. In northern Saskatchewan, Cameco engages regularly with communities we have collaboration agreements with, as well as through the Environmental Quality Committee, a provincial government-created group made up of all of the communities in northern Saskatchewan.

MM6Disputes related to land use and customary rights

This indicator provides information about significant disputes relating to the land use and customary rights of local or indigenous peoples where we operate.

Cameco was not involved in any significant disputes related to land use or customary rights with local communities and indigenous peoples during the reporting period.

What it means

We respect the rights of Indigenous peoples, and we invest considerable time in building relationships with local communities through our various engagement activities, including working with communities and traditional land users to understand local land use.

Definitions

Significant disputes – Disputes that have been elevated to:

  • a legal proceeding
  • a formal objection filed with the applicable regulator
  • a blockade or other form of civil disobedience
  • the need to use a dispute resolution mechanism included in an agreement between the community and Cameco

MM7Use of grievance mechanisms

This indicator looks at the extent to which local communities or indigenous groups used grievance mechanisms to resolve disputes relating to land use and customary rights, and the status or outcome of those processes.

Cameco was not involved in any disputes related to land use or customary rights with local communities and indigenous peoples during the reporting period, and, as a result, no grievance mechanisms were engaged.

What it means

While local communities and indigenous peoples have several grievance mechanisms available to them, we have had no significant disputes relating to land use and customary rights where their use would have been appropriate.

MM10Operations with preliminary decommissioning plans

This indicator looks at the number of operations Cameco has with preliminary decommissioning plans, as well as the financial provisions attached to those plans for reclamation activities.

  Decommissioning plan Total estimated future decommissioning and reclamation costs
Total 10 of 10 (100%) $975 million

This indicator does not include advanced non-operational sites (Kintyre, Yeelirrie, Millennium), office structures, exploration activities, operations in which Cameco does not have operational control, or rented facilities that Cameco operates (Cobourg).

What it means

All of Cameco’s operations have preliminary decommissioning plans with adequate funding attached.

Definitions

Decommissioning plan – Conceptual plan that describes the activities required after the operating life of a facility to reclaim the site to defined final end-state objectives. It includes an associated cost estimate for labour, materials, equipment, waste management, environmental assessment, monitoring and administration to carry out the plan. The amount of detail these decommissioning plans have is dependent on the mine life remaining. For example, a mine that has just a couple years of operations left will have a much more rigorous decommissioning plan than an operation that is not closing for several decades. Regulators review our conceptual decommissioning plans on a regular basis. As a site approaches or goes into decommissioning, a final decommissioning plan is created, which usually requires regulatory approval. This can result in further regulatory process, as well as additional requirements, costs and financial assurances.

SO7Competition law compliance

This indicator provides information about legal actions initiated against Cameco under national or international law designed to regulate anti-competitive behaviour and address anti-trust or monopoly practices.

This includes information about pending or completed actions and the outcomes of pending or completed actions, including any decisions or judgments.

There were no legal actions initiated against Cameo related to anti-competitive behaviour during the reporting period.

What it means

Cameco is committed to compliance with competition and anti-trust laws everywhere we operate.

SO8Significant fines (non-compliance)

This indicator provides information about administrative or judicial fines and non-monetary sanctions levied against Cameco for failure to comply with laws and regulations, including:

  • national, sub-national, regional and local regulations
  • international declarations, conventions or treaties

This includes the total monetary value of significant fines and the number of non-monetary sanctions. It does not include fines or non-monetary sanctions related to environmental or labelling regulations, transportation matters and fines or sanctions we are in the process of appealing.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
# of Sanctions 0 0 0 0 0
Value of significant fines (USD) 0 $233,528 $659,646 0 0
# of significant fines 0 1 2 0 0

What it means

In 2015, no sanctions or significant fines were levied against Cameco. This includes the total monetary value of significant fines and the number of non-monetary sanctions. It does not include fines or non-monetary sanctions related to environmental or labelling regulations, transportation matters and fines or sanctions we are in the process of appealing. It also does not include any fines or payments related to our dispute with the CRA. For more information, see pages 29 – 33 of our annual MD&A.

Definitions

Significant fine – Fines that exceed CDN $100,000 paid by Cameco or a controlled subsidiary in Canada, the US, Europe or Kazakhstan to a government authority for non-compliance with government laws or regulations, other than environmental laws and regulations.

Non-monetary sanction – n administrative or judicial sanction levied against Cameco or a controlled subsidiary for non-compliance with laws and regulations that results in either (i) a Level IV or V incident under Cameco’s corrective action process standard; or (ii) a criminal conviction for Cameco or one of its controlled subsidiaries.

Product Responsibility

PR4Labelling non-compliance

This indicator provides information about Cameco’s compliance with dangerous goods labelling requirements defined by transport regulations and reported to regulatory agencies in Canada, the US, Australia and Kazakhstan.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
# of incidents reported to regulatory agencies (total) 3 2 4 5 0
Resulting in a fine 0 0 0 0 0
Resulting in a warning 1 0 2 2 0

What it means

Cameco reported no incidents resulting from labeling non-compliance in 2015.

Definitions

Labeling non-compliance – The types of information that must be correctly presented on our product labels are:

  • radioactive category
  • subsidiary hazard(s) – when applicable
  • proper shipping name
  • UN number – a number issued by the United Nations which is used to quickly identify dangerous substances for emergency response, handling and storage during transport
  • VRI code (international vehicle registration code – when applicable)
  • name of consignor/consignee
  • type and weight of package
  • placards

PR9Sanctions (product non-compliance)

This indicator provides information about monetary fines imposed by regulatory agencies for non-compliance with laws and regulations related to providing products and services (transportation and customs related fines) in Canada, the US, Australia and Kazakhstan.

There have been no fines levied against Cameco for non-compliance with transport and customs laws and regulations during the reporting period.

What it means

Cameco complies with all transportation and customs regulations wherever we operate.

Definitions

Provision of products – Transportation of products, on or off-site.

Cameco Indicators

CA1Polling (public support)

This indicator provides information about the level of public support for Cameco’s operations in Saskatchewan, northern Saskatchewan, Port Hope (Ontario) and the US.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Region Public support %
Saskatchewan 79 81 79 79 86
Northern SK 67 77 76 79 81
Ontario 87 89 87 84 88
Nebraska 73 70 69 70 62
Wyoming 86 85 89 87 91

What it means

The majority of Cameco’s operations continue to see strong support from the communities where we operate. In 2015, we saw increasing support in all regions except in Nebraska where we saw an eight-point drop.

CA2Average radiation dose to workers

This indicator provides information about the average radiation dose to workers at our mining and milling and fuel services divisions in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Kazakhstan and the US.

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Avg. radiation dose (mSv) 0.81 0.72 0.72 0.85 0.82

What it means

Our average radiation dose to workers remains consistently low, at under 1 millisievert (mSv). By comparison, typical natural background radiation doses to the public are 2–3 mSv per year. Cameco rates are far below the maximum annual dosage limit of 50 mSv and 100 mSv over a five-year dosimetry block permitted by regulators (note that the US sites only have an annual limit, and no long-term limit in their regulations). In 2015, we saw a marginal increase in doses from our mining and milling division as a result of the start of production at our Cigar Lake facility, while our fuel services division saw a sizeable drop due to lower internal doses.

Note

The values in the table represent the arithmetic average dose of all employees and contractors at our operations. Another metric used in our annual regulatory report is the full-time equivalent average, which normalizes the doses to a standard work year of 2,000 hours. Both are valid metrics.