GRI Indicators
Economic
^EC1 – Direct economic value
^This indicator provides information about Cameco's annual revenues, operating costs, employee wages and benefits, payments to shareholders, payments to governments, community investments, and economic value retained.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenues | 2,314,985 | 2,123,655 | 2,384,404 | 2,321,471 |
| Operating Costs | 937,411 | 1,024,461 | 1,201,406 | 1,186,406 |
| Employee Wages and Benefits | 590,000 | 599,731 | 653,582 | 699,519 |
| Payments to Providers of Capital | 144,648 | 173,084 | 207,936 | 224,463 |
| Payments to Government | 57,093 | 63,222 | 30,616 | 35,906 |
| Community Investments | 4,794 | 4,794 | 5,294 | 5,294 |
| Economic Value Retained | 581,039 | 258,363 | 285,570 | 169,883 |
All figures in Canadian dollars (1000s).
2009 employee wages and benefits have been estimated (not tracked separately at that time).
On January 1, 2011, we adopted IFRS for Canadian publicly accountable enterprises. Amounts relating to the year ended December 31, 2010 have been revised using IFRS for comparative purposes. Amounts for periods prior to January 1, 2010 are presented in accordance with Canadian GAAP.
What it means
Revenues
In 2012, revenue declined by 3% mainly due to a lower realized price for uranium compared to record realized prices in 2011.
Operating costs
The decrease in the operating costs in 2012 was mainly due to lower total cost of products and services sold in our fuel services and electricity businesses.
Employee Wages and Benefits
Increased due to the general increase in employee wages and benefits, along with increases in pension and share based compensation costs.
Payments to shareholders (providers of capital)
The increase from 2011 is primarily due to an increase in the amount of dividends paid, which is due to an increase in the number of shares outstanding.
Payments to governments (taxes)
Payments to government have decreased due a decline in pre-tax earnings in 2012. The distribution of earnings between jurisdictions was also different compared to 2011.
Note 1
We have recast some of our 2011 data for this indicator. In August 2008, Cameco acquired a 70% interest in the Kintyre exploration project in Australia. The Company previously consolidated its investment in Kintyre on the basis that it was able to exercise control over the asset. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company reconsidered the accounting treatment applied to Kintyre and concluded that consolidation of the investment was not appropriate and only Cameco's interest in the assets and liabilities of Kintyre should be recognized. Accordingly, the non-controlling interest in the assets, liabilities and expenses has been removed from the financial statements. The change in accounting has been applied retrospectively and the comparative statements for 2011 have been recast. There was no impact on retained earnings or net earnings attributable to equity holders for any of the recast periods. The most significant changes relate to a reduction of property, plant and equipment of $182,615,000 and a reduction of the non-controlling interest on the statement of changes in financial position of $182,395,000.
Note 2
Our payments to government in 2010 and 2011 have been revised as we have netted income taxes paid with income taxes refunded. We have also revised our Economic Value Retained to reflect this change.
EC6 – Local spending
^This indicator shows the total dollar amount of services procured from local suppliers at Cameco’s operating sites in northern Saskatchewan, Kazakhstan, and Ontario each year from 2009 to 2012.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N. Saskatchewan | ||||
| Total Services | $309,428,098 | $381,599,332 | $533,877,071 | $629,563,958 |
| Local Service Procurement | $219,373,260 | $296,268,979 | $393,191,740 | $458,009,604 |
| % Local Procurement for Services | 71% | 78% | 74% | 72.75% |
| Kazakhstan | ||||
| Total Services | not available | $41,091,338 | $14,022,608 | $54,936,635 |
| Local Service Procurement | not available | $38,686,805 | $12,848,565 | $38,073,200 |
| % Local Procurement for Services | not available | 94.10% | 91.63% | 69.30% |
| Ontario | ||||
| Total Services | not available | not available | $95,153,000 | $151,589,250 |
| Local Service Procurement | not available | not available | $60,780,000 | $92,466,588 |
| % Local Procurement for Services | not available | not available | 63.88% | 61% |
What it means
Cameco has helped to establish a strong base of local suppliers to provide services at our operating sites through programs like our northern preferred supplier program in northern Saskatchewan, which gives preference to northern owned and operated suppliers. In 2012 alone, Cameco procured nearly $600 million in services for our operations from local businesses in northern Saskatchewan, Kazakhstan, and Ontario, which was a 26% increase over 2011 numbers. Fluctuations in percentages in jurisdictions, as well as real numbers are due to fluctuations in Cameco’s operational and capital spend from year to year, type of services required as well as capacity limitations among local service providers.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to work with local suppliers to increase their capacity and ensure we are able to continue to purchase as many of our services locally as possible. While our procurement numbers have risen over the last several years due to capital expenditure projects, we expect these dollar numbers to decrease over the next several years as these projects wrap up. We also expect to maintain our percentages for local procurement.
Definitions
Local
This term differs from country to country and region to region. In northern Saskatchewan, our surface leases mandate the entire Northern Administrative District (an area that makes up one-half of the province) area as local for our operations in Saskatchewan. In Ontario, communities within the provincial borders are local while in Kazakhstan, the country itself is considered local.
Local supplier
Under the northern preferred supplier program in northern Saskatchewan, a local supplier is defined as a company or joint venture that is at least 51% owned by people or communities from the Northern Administration District and also has local people in management positions. In Ontario, a local supplier is one from within the provincial borders, while in Kazakhstan any Kazakhstani business is considered a local supplier.
Note
2011 and 2012 totals for Ontario include both goods and services.
EC7 – Local 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.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Employees / Total | 669/1337 | 703/1410 | 761/1505 | 756/1531 |
| % Of Employees from Local Community | 50.00% | 49.90% | 50.60% | 49.40% |
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Management from Local Community / Total Senior Management | 2 of 37 | 1 of 38 | 1 of 33 | 2 of 28 |
| % Of Senior Management from Local Community | 5.40% | 2.60% | 3.03% | 7.10% |
What it means
Our corporate social responsibility policy includes a commitment to encourage local employment wherever we operate. Through this policy, Cameco continues to build capacity by hiring qualified local residents whenever possible. While the percentage of local employees from northern Saskatchewan trended downward slightly last year, both overall and in terms of percentage, we continue to employ a large number of local people in the region, over 80% of which are either First Nations or Metis.
Looking ahead
Cameco is working toward increasing the number of senior managers from northern Saskatchewan at our mining operations through various means, including a program called Career Compass. This program is an internally-focused career management program that allows selected northern Saskatchewan employees to direct and grow their own careers within the organization.
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.
EC8 – Infrastructure 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 formal infrastructure needs assessments in our local communities.
b – Current (or expected) impact of infrastructure and service investments
From 2009-2012, Cameco has invested over $6.4 million in support of infrastructure improvement projects in local communities. Some of our more significant infrastructure investments in 2012 include:
| Community | Region | Amount | Infrastructure/Service | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Astana | Kazakhstan | $413,909 | Mini Sports Complex |
| 2012 | NAD | Northern Saskatchewan | $369,000 | NORTEP Math and Science Expansion |
| 2012 | Saskatoon | Saskatchewan | $276,654 | Children's Hospital Foundation |
| 2012 | Astana | Kazakhstan | $214,471 | Donation to Nazarbayez University |
| 2012 | Beauval | Northern Saskatchewan | $200,000 | Community Arena |
| 2012 | Hatchet Lake | Northern Saskatchewan | $200,000 | Fire Hall |
2012 Highlights:
Northern Saskatchewan
- In 2012, we provided a substantial donation to NORTEP-NORPAC for the building of a shared science facility in the town of La Ronge. This state of the art facility will allow for post-secondary institutions to deliver science courses to allow northern youth to pursue careers in science-related fields that are in high demand in the area.
- We also provided a donation to the community of Beauval for their community arena, which was destroyed by a fire in April 2011. With the rebuilding of the arena, much needed programming and activities will once again be available to community youth.
Saskatoon
- 2012 once again saw Cameco raise substantial dollars for the Children’s Hospital Foundation in Saskatoon through our MBC Radio-Thon. Since 2011, Cameco and northern Saskatchewan peoples have raised over $1 million dollars for the proposed hospital, which when built will deliver pediatric and maternal care to the entire province.
Kazakhstan
- In October 2012, Kazakhstan Cameco opened a mini-sports complex in the village of Syntas, This complex was constructed for the benefit of more than 600 high school students from Zhambyl High school and additional students from the neighboring villages as well as residents of Syntas village and will provide plenty of recreational activities for the local communities.
What it means
Although Cameco does not specifically target infrastructure investments, we receive many requests for investments from local communities to support infrastructure projects because many of these communities have infrastructure deficits.
Currently, we target four areas for support from our community investment fund:
- youth
- health and wellness
- education and literacy
- community development
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to provide investments toward infrastructure projects in local communities on a case by case basis. Through the signing of a collaboration agreement with the village of Pinehouse in northern Saskatchewan, we have developed a new model of community investment where communities like Pinehouse take control of community investment funds to apply as they see fit, which may include community infrastructure projects. It is anticipated that this model will be replicated with several other communities in northern Saskatchewan.
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 (i.e. roads) but that local communities may also benefit from.
EC9 – Indirect 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 secondary jobs
- indirect spending: $132 million in secondary expenditure impact through wages and salaries, local procurement, local trades, and charitable contributions
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 secondary jobs
- indirect labour income (trades): $5 million in secondary labour income
- indirect economic activity: $16.8 million in secondary economic activity
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 secondary jobs
- indirect labour income: $2.5 million in secondary labor income
- indirect economic activity: $7.8 million in secondary economic activity
What it means
Cameco is a major economic contributor everywhere we operate, both directly through things like salaries, wages, and local procurement, and indirectly through secondary employment and secondary economic activity.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to work to understand the economic impact, both positive and negative, we have on communities wherever we operate and will work to update these studies over the next several years.
Environmental
^EN3 – Direct energy use (by primary source)
^This indicator provides information about the amount of energy we buy or produce for our own use.
This includes:
- natural gas
- diesel
- gasoline
- propane
- light fuel oil (and other crude-oil derivatives)
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
Cameco’s direct energy use is increasing as we expand our operations and increase production.
Looking ahead
We expect our energy use to continue to increase as we expand our operations and increase production in support of our long-term growth strategy. To mitigate our demand for non-renewable sources, we are working towards improved energy efficiency at our older operations through targeted Operational Reliability and other maintenance programs, as well as with the capture and reuse of waste heat or steam energy. We are also incorporating energy balance and efficiency considerations into the design and purchase of new equipment and infrastructure.
EN4 – Indirect energy use (by primary source)
^This indicator provides information about the indirect energy Cameco uses. While the only indirect energy we purchase is electricity, our providers utilize the following renewable and non-renewable sources to produce it:
- steam
- nuclear
- hydro
- wind
- biomass
- hydrocarbons (coal, oil, natural gas)
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
Cameco’s indirect energy use is increasing as we expand our operations and increase production.
Looking ahead
We expect our energy use to continue to increase as we expand our operations and increase production in support of our long-term growth strategy. To mitigate this, we are working to improve energy efficiency at our older operations, including capture and reuse of waste heat or steam energy to offset primary energy consumption where possible, and incorporating energy balance and efficiency considerations into the design and purchase of new equipment and infrastructure.
EN8 – Water withdrawal (by source)
^This indicator shows the volume of water withdrawn from surface water bodies (~35%) and groundwater (~65%), including water we extract from groundwater depressurization, mine dewatering activities, seepage control, and runoff collection. It also includes streams purged from our in situ recovery (ISR) operations in the US and Kazakhstan, which is done to maintain the flow of surrounding groundwater into the direction of our wells rather than away. These extraction processes maintain continuous capture of any water potentially impacted by our operations.
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
Although our mining operations have been expanding, our water withdrawal volumes have been relatively stable since 2009. Given that our primary subsurface mining footprints have expanded over the past couple years, this indicates that we have been successful in both minimizing inflow of groundwater to our mines, and recycling of water in order to reduce freshwater intake.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to practice responsible water use by minimizing consumption and maximizing diversion of flow around our operating footprints in order to reduce impact to the environment.
EN16 – GHG emissions (by weight)
^This indicator shows Cameco’s scope 1 and 2 (direct and indirect) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as defined by an international GHG protocol developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
Cameco is a contributor to one of the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting sources of energy (per kWh energy produced) as the lifecycle emissions of nuclear-sourced energy compare favourably with renewable sources such as wind, hydroelectric, and biomass. For further information on how comparable nuclear GHG emissions are to other sources of energy, visit World Nuclear Association.
Looking ahead
Although our expanded production is expected to increase our GHG emissions over the next several years, each of our facilities’ emissions should remain below the reportable levels designated by provincial regulators, and below actionable thresholds designated by federal regulatory agencies. However, to mitigate the increase, we are working towards improved energy efficiency at our older operations, including capture and reuse of waste heat or steam energy to offset consumption where possible, and incorporating energy balance and efficiency considerations into the design and purchase of new equipment and infrastructure.
EN20 – Air emissions (by type and weight)
^This indicator provides air emission data for selected constituents of potential concern (COPC) that are released from process or stationary combustion. COPCs are chemical constituents in the environment that may be harmful to plants, animals, land and water ecosystems, and people. The constituents we report on at each site relate to regulatory requirements and community concerns for each jurisdiction. They include:
- nitrogen oxides (NOx)
- sulphur oxides (SOx)
- hydrogen fluoride
- uranium (U) and other metals
- ammonia (NH3)
- particulate matter (PM)
| Performance Metric (Unit of Measure) | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOx | kg | 276,116 | 287,559 | 303,435 | 397,301 |
| SOx (as SO2) | kg | 346,783 | 210,542 | 313,569 | 325,798 |
| Total PM | kg | 28,231 | 27,159 | 25,143 | 16,567 |
| U | kg | 291 | 257 | 655 | 152 |
| NH3 | kg | 101,057 | 76,924 | 67,436 | 59,594 |
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
Total air emissions in 2012 have increased from 2011 totals by 13%. The increase is primarily from nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide emissions due to temporary increased utilization of on-site diesel generators during project upgrades to a local substation for one of our northern operations.
Decreases were seen in total particulate matter, uranium, and ammonia emissions largely as a result of detailed stack testing and emission factor refinements at one of our northern sites. The more accurate measurements allowed for a reduction of conservatively calculated and reported process emissions from previous years.
Looking ahead
Cameco continues to look for opportunities and efficiencies to decrease air emissions in the future. Our fuel services division is working on a plan to reduce overall emissions. The new acid plant at Key Lake, commissioned late 2012, is expected to reduce our SOx emissions for 2013, after a full year of its operation. All sites are looking for efficiencies for reduction of fuel consumption in all areas of their operations through targeted Operational Reliability and other maintenance programs.
Corrections made to previously reported data
Corrections were made to total air emissions reported for 2009 through 2011. The total air emissions decreased by approximately 4,500 kg in 2009; 12,000 kg in 2010; and 60,000 kg in 2011. The decrease in emissions for the three years was predominantly due the exclusion of fugitive dust emissions from typical site operations, which should not be classified as process PM emissions. In addition, in 2011 NOx was reduced due to the correction of an incorrect factor utilized in calculations.
EN21 – Water discharge (by quality and destination)
^Water volumes
This indicator provides information on the total volume of treated and untreated water we discharge, including process water, non-contact cooling water, and water from mine dewatering activities.
In addition, the indicator includes information about the volume of water we consume in our process whether it is evaporated, used to generate steam, or disposed through deep well injection.
Constituent loadings
Loading information is provided for discharge streams that are treated and released to the surface environment. Loadings are not reported for non-contact cooling water and other unimpacted streams because they are returned to the environment at the same quality at which they were withdrawn. These streams did not gain or lose any of the constituents already present.
Our deep well injection loadings are reported under indicator MM3, because the loadings are classified as mine process waste materials. Please review the mine waste indicator for more information about deep well injection.
Summary Mass Metal Loadings (kg)
| Corporate total - Surface Discharges | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| Arsenic | 45 | 35 | 37 | 29 |
| Copper | 40 | 27 | 24 | 30 |
| Molybdenum | 14,911 | 4,170 | 4,180 | 2,821 |
| Nickel | 119 | 224 | 233 | 218 |
| Selenium | 125 | 47 | 47 | 45 |
| Uranium | 491 | 462 | 459 | 343 |
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
In the last four years, we have decreased the total mass of constituents we released to the environment, most notably molybdenum and selenium. These reductions have been made through persistent efforts to improve our water management practices and treatment technologies.
Looking ahead
Cameco aims to use water responsibly. We continue to work toward minimizing our consumption and ensuring that the water we discharge has no significant adverse impacts on the environment. We also continue to look for ways to divert or otherwise keep unimpacted streams from entering our mine workings and to minimize the potential for contamination. We will continue to look for ways to reduce our loadings to the environment.
About measuring and calculating our loadings
Loading calculations vary slightly at each site, but where constituent concentrations are lower than what our third-party labs can detect and measure, we usually report an amount at the minimum detection level.
For example, if the lab reports <0.001 mg/L, then we assume and report a concentration of 0.001 mg/L. This is a very conservative methodology that is typically used to assess the potential for environmental impacts, but overestimates our actual loadings to the environment.
In the future, we will be altering our reporting methods to align with Environment Canada's National Pollutant Registry Inventory (NPRI) reporting guidelines, which are in agreement with the methods described in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool. When the lab cannot measure the concentration level of a constituent (also referred to as “below detection”) we will assume zero loading. If the level fluctuates above and below the detection limit, we will assume the concentration is half of the limit for the readings that fall below the measurable level, and average those amounts with the measurable readings to calculate our total loadings.
EN22 – Waste
^This indicator provides information about the total amount of solid, semi-solid and liquid waste we generate and divert, except wastewater (EN21) and mine waste (MM3). It includes non-hazardous industrial waste, as well as hazardous waste and radioactive or radiologically contaminated waste, as defined by national legislation where the waste is generated.
Non-Hazardous Waste
| Units | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generated | tonnes | 2,781 | 4,284 | 7,655 | 5,943 |
| Diverted | tonnes | 488 | 1,680 | 1,449 | 2,252 |
| Landfilled or Stored | tonnes | 2,293 | 2,604 | 6,206 | 3,691 |
| Rate of Diversion | % | 17.6 | 39.2 | 18.9 | 37.9 |
Radioactive Waste
| Units | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generated | tonnes | 6,669 | 6,744 | 7,696 | 11,375 |
| Diverted | tonnes | 603 | 1,756 | 1,177 | 1,651 |
| Landfilled or Stored | tonnes | 6,067 | 4,988 | 6,519 | 9,724 |
| Rate of Diversion | % | 9.0 | 26.0 | 15.3 | 14.5 |
Hazardous Waste
| Units | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generated | tonnes | 385 | 448 | 270 | 297 |
| Diverted | tonnes | 332 | 342 | 188 | 195 |
| Landfilled or Stored | tonnes | 53 | 105 | 82 | 102 |
| Rate of Diversion | % | 86 | 77 | 70 | 66 |
Includes all divisions except corporate offices and exploration.
What it means
The amount of waste we generate depends on the type of activities conducted at our operations. In recent years, we have generated more waste as a result of expanding operations and efforts to clean up legacy waste from across our sites. There is also a direct correlation between the amount of camp waste generated and the amount of people on site.
One thing to note is that our rates of diversion fluctuate from year to year because the rate is dependent on the types of waste that were generated in that year. For example, if a large proportion of the waste generated was metal and it could be recycled (some requires decontamination first), the diversion rate may be higher for that year as compared to another having a lower proportion of recyclable metal. We are focused on reporting that which is landfilled or stored, versus diverted from landfill or storage. Within the diverted category, based on 2011 totals, we include materials that are recycled (87% by mass), incinerated (10% by mass), and recovered (3% by mass) in other ways (i.e., via reprocessing).
Looking ahead
We expect our waste volumes to increase as we expand our operations, increase production, deal with historic waste and progressively decommission our sites. We are pursuing waste diversion initiatives to minimize the amount of waste we landfill.
Definitions
Radiologically-contaminated waste: As defined by local jurisdiction, all generated (including those produced as a by-product) radiologically-contaminated or radioactive materials.
Hazardous wastes: A hazardous waste generally means a product, substance, other than a nuclear substance, that is used in connection with or produced in the course of carrying on a licensed activity which may pose a risk to the environment or the health and safety of persons, as determined by the criteria, tests and lists referred to in local regulations.
Diversion: Materials diverted from landfill by the following means: incinerated, composted, processed for mineral recovery, reused, repurposed or recycled.
Corrections made to previously reported data
Corrections were made to wastes reported for 2009 through 2011. For 2009 and 2010 data, some errors in calculations were discovered, resulting as follows: overall decreases in 2009, of 259 tonnes in reported total generated and 316 tonnes in total landfilled and/or stored, and an increase of 57 tonnes diverted; and in 2010, overall decreases of 238 tonnes in reported total generated and 339 tonnes in diverted, as well as an increase of 101 tonnes in total landfilled and/or stored. For 2011 data, the changes were a result of similar calculation corrections made to 2010 data, and for previously unreported recycled tonnages in 2011. Some corrections were also made to previously reported diverted hazardous waste streams, where clarity was provided in terms of the handling of those materials by the waste handlers utilized. The overall results of the corrections for 2011 are overall decreases of 71 tonnes in reported total generated and 113 tonnes in total landfilled and/or stored, as well as an increase of 42 tonnes in diverted.
MM3 – Mine waste (overburden, rock, tailings, sludges)
^This indicator provides information about the amount of mine waste we generate and re-use.
Mine waste includes stockpiled overburden, mineralized and non-mineralized waste rock, and tailings. It also includes loadings from process waste water as referred to under EN21, sludges, slimes and other process residuals.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Mine Waste Generated | 423,454 | 546,639 | 491,754 | 581,652 |
| Total Change in Wasterock Inventories | -113,110 | -55,835 | -83,013 | -72,603 |
| Total Tailings & Process Wastes | 536,564 | 602,474 | 574,767 | 654,255 |
What it means
Over the past three years, the net amount of mine waste generated has fluctuated. This is primarily due to fluctuating production of tailings (which is tied to ore grades), and the balance between expanding underground operations in our northern Saskatchewan operations and our abilities to consume the generated waste rock. The amount of waste rock we can reuse depends on the type of waste rock that is generated and the number of projects in progress (which affects the amount of aggregate we need).
On a positive note, the negative values shown in the table indicate where we were successful in re-purposing stockpiled rock in excess of the fresh waste rock being generated. The amounts consumed at three of our operations exceed the amounts being generated at two of our operations under current development. We use mineralized waste rock as blend material for ore processing and for structural support in backfilling our underground mines. Clean waste rock is used in concrete mixtures, to build new facilities and to develop or maintain roads. This reduces the size of our waste rock piles and the amount of other natural aggregate resources we consume.
Looking ahead
We expect our mine waste volumes to continue to fluctuate as we expand our existing operations or open new facilities. We will continue to re-purpose as much of this material as possible.
Corrections made to previously reported data
The total change in the waste rock inventories for 2010 and 2011 were updated, as changes to a small pile at one site were found to be unaccounted for in the summations. Also in 2011, the consumption of materials from another pile had not been reported, and has since been updated. The overall results are that the total mine waste generated in 2010 increased by 7,320 tonnes, where the total mine waste generated in 2011 decreased by 130,444 tonnes.
Note
For safe disposal of process waste streams at some of our in situ recovery (ISR) operations, Cameco utilizes a liquid waste disposal technology called deep well injection. This method uses injection wells to place treated or untreated liquid waste into water-tight geologic formations that prevent migration of contaminants into potable water aquifers. Cameco’s wells are classified as Class 1 Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste disposal wells. The depth of these wells varies with the site geologic characteristics ranging from average depths of 3500 ft to 9000 ft (1000 m to 2700 m), with the majority completed at the latter depth. For more information about deep well injection, please visit the US Environmental Protection Agency site.
EN23 – Significant 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 incidents that involve a release of material, we report the total quantity of material released and any associated impacts.
Incident 1 – Cameco Fuel Manufacturing (CFM) Cobourg
During non-routine cleaning of the waste treatment area in August 2009 we discovered that the sump pit in the containment area was significantly compromised, allowing fluoride and other contaminants to be released. Subsequent investigation confirmed that there was minor soil contamination but that fluoride (the primary constituent of concern) had not migrated beyond the immediate area. The sump was repaired and all other sumps at both CFM plants were inspected and upgraded as needed.
What it means
Since 2009, there have been no significant environmental incidents at any of our operations. Cameco continues to maintain good control of its operations and successfully limits the number of significant environmental incidents.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to strive for no significant environmental incidents at our sites.
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.
Note
How Cameco defines significant environmental incidents has changed since our last report to reflect actual consequences from an environmental and stakeholder relationship perspective, rather than on potential consequences. As a result of this, one previously reported incident that occurred in 2009 at the Port Hope Conversion Facility will no longer be reported on as it did not fit the new criteria.
EN28 – Significant 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."
Since 2009, Cameco has received two significant fines, both in 2011, and four non-monetary sanctions, all in 2012, for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulation.
What it means
In 2011, JV Inkai was cited for failing to observe environmental legislation in regards to the disposal of some drilling muds and received two fines – one for $205,000 (US) for failing to observe environmental legislation, which was paid under protest, and the other was for damages in the amount of $207,000 (US) for failing to observe applicable legislation.
In 2012, Cameco and its controlled subsidiaries received four Non-Monetary Sanctions:
- The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) imposed an order on our Blind River refinery as a result of an incident involving a pressurized drum of yellowcake received from an external non-Cameco US operator. Cameco complied with the order and it was confirmed and closed upon review.
- A Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to our Rabbit Lake operation by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment related to a spill of diesel fuel and obscured labeling and surface staining on a waste oil tank. We have addressed the terms of the NOV related to the waste oil tank and we are working to close out the conditions related to the diesel fuel spill
- Cameco’s Smith Ranch-Highland operation received an NOV from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality as a result of surface disturbance outside of the permit boundary. We entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this NOV.
- JV Inkai received a direction to prevent two detected violations issued by the South Kazakhstan Regional Ecology Department related to unauthorized storage of industrial wastes and excess sewage disposal. JV Inkai instituted corrective actions to address the violations and both items are now closed.
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
For this year’s update, we have redefined significant environmental fine to be one that is over $100,000, not $50,000 as reported last year. We made this change in order to be consistent with our reporting of environmental fines and penalties for other purposes such as financing and insurance. As a result of this change, we will no longer report on a 2009 fine we paid for an NOV we received at our Crow Butte operation in Nebraska in 2006.
Labour Practices and Decent Work
^LA1 – Workforce (by employment type, contract, and gender)
^This indicator provides information about the total number of employees directly employed by Cameco, broken down by employment type (full- or part-time), contract (regular, temporary or casual) and gender.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | |
| Regular Full Time | 2,344 | 671 | 2,446 | 700 | 2,556 | 746 | 2,614 | 764 |
| Regular Part Time | 3 | 27 | 6 | 33 | 10 | 31 | 15 | 42 |
| Temporary Full Time | 61 | 25 | 67 | 27 | 73 | 39 | 71 | 45 |
| Temporary Part Time | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 6 |
| Casual | 10 | 6 | 16 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 2 |
Includes all of Cameco except JV Inkai (Kazakhstan). Figures as of December 31 each year.
What it means
Cameco is a large employer, with nearly 3,600 employees worldwide. We continue to be an employer of choice in Canada, where the majority of our workforce resides, being recognized once again in 2012 as a top 100 employer in Canada, one of Financial Post’s Ten Best companies to work for, as well as one of Canada’s best diversity employers and a top employer for young people.
LA2 – Hiring 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.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Hires | Year End | Rate | New Hires | Year End | Rate | New Hires | Year End | Rate | New Hires | Year End | Rate | |
| Male | 315 | 2,541 | 12.40% | 408 | 2,632 | 15.50% | 453 | 2,651 | 17.09% | 552 | 2,715 | 20.33% |
| Female | 146 | 609 | 23.97% | 199 | 670 | 29.70% | 195 | 823 | 23.69% | 209 | 859 | 24.33% |
| Up to 35 | 273 | 800 | 34.13% | 353 | 899 | 39.27% | 385 | 1,038 | 37.09% | 467 | 1,082 | 43.16% |
| 36-55 | 158 | 1,551 | 10.19% | 221 | 1,641 | 13.47% | 224 | 1,954 | 11.46% | 250 | 1,962 | 12.74% |
| 56+ | 30 | 326 | 9.20% | 33 | 385 | 8.57% | 39 | 482 | 8.09% | 44 | 530 | 8.30% |
| Total | 461 | 3,150 | 14.63% | 607 | 3,302 | 18.38% | 648 | 3,474 | 18.65% | 761 | 3,574 | 21.29% |
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turn over | Year End | Rate | Turn over | Year End | Rate | Turn over | Year End | Rate | Turn over | Year End | Rate | |
| Male | 195 | 2,541 | 7.67% | 275 | 2,632 | 10.45% | 280 | 2,651 | 10.56% | 415 | 2,715 | 15.29% |
| Female | 114 | 609 | 18.72% | 144 | 670 | 21.49% | 110 | 823 | 13.37% | 138 | 859 | 16.07% |
| Up to 35 | 166 | 800 | 20.75% | 229 | 899 | 25.47% | 221 | 1,038 | 21.29% | 285 | 1,082 | 26.34% |
| 36-55 | 110 | 1,551 | 7.09% | 132 | 1,641 | 8.04% | 138 | 1,954 | 7.06% | 223 | 1,962 | 11.37% |
| 56+ | 33 | 326 | 10.12% | 58 | 385 | 15.06% | 31 | 482 | 6.43% | 45 | 530 | 8.49% |
| Total | 309 | 3,150 | 9.81% | 419 | 3,302 | 12.69% | 390 | 3,474 | 11.23% | 553 | 3,574 | 15.47% |
Includes all of Cameco except JV Inkai (Kazakhstan). Figures as of December 31 each year.
What it means
Cameco has hired a large number of people over the past several years, many of whom are female. Last year alone, nearly 30% of our new hires were women. We are also increasingly hiring younger people, with over 60% of our new hires being under the age of 35.
While our turnover rate was higher than average in 2012, it is still in line with industry averages. One factor is that we include temporary employees in our turnover rate calculations, which is far more unpredictable than turnover for regular employees, leading to a variance by a couple of point’s month over month and year over year.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to hire people on an as-needed basis and also work to keep employee turnover as low as possible through proactive retention and talent management programs.
Definitions
Turnover
The number of employees who resign, are dismissed, retire or die while employed by Cameco each year.
LA4 – Collective bargaining
^This indicator provides information about the total number and percentage of Cameco employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Workers | 3,150 | 3,302 | 3,474 | 3,574 |
| Workers Covered by Collective Bargaining | 893 | 891 | 913 | 907 |
| % of Workers Covered by Collective Bargaining | 28.35% | 26.98% | 26.28% | 25.38% |
Includes all of Cameco except JV Inkai (Kazakhstan). Figures as of December 31 each year.
What it means
Cameco participates in collective bargaining with its unionized employees in accordance with applicable legislation. Approximately one-quarter of our workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements. In 2012, we renegotiated a collective bargaining agreement with 120 workers at our fuel manufacturing operations in Port Hope and Cobourg.
The following sites have collective bargaining agreements:
- Key Lake
- McArthur River
- Port Hope Conversion Facility
- Cameco Fuel Manufacturing (Port Hope and Cobourg)
LA6 – Health 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.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Workers | 3,150 | 3,302 | 3,474 | 3,574 |
| Workers Represented by Joint Committee's | 3,150 | 3,302 | 3,474 | 3,574 |
| % of Workers Represented in Joint Committee's | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Includes all of Cameco except JV Inkai (Kazakhstan). Figures as of December 31 each year.
What it means
All of Cameco’s employees in Canada, the US, and Australia are represented by OHS committees.
LA7 – Injury frequency, missed work
^This indicator provides information about Cameco’s rates of absenteeism, lost-time injuries and work related fatalities. For lost-time injuries and fatalities, we include both employees and contractors in our numbers.
We do not track absentee rates in Australia or Kazakhstan.
Cameco has had no fatalities at its sites from 2009-2012.
What it means
2012 saw Cameco realize its lowest LTI rate in history, speaking to Cameco’s commitment to safety as part of our culture. Contributing to this low rate was our US operations, where Smith Ranch-Highland achieved one year without an LTI in July 2012 and our Crow Butte operation celebrated five years without an LTI.
Looking ahead
Cameco is committed to sustain safe and healthy workplaces as demonstrated by our excellent safety record. We will continue to strive for zero injuries and maintain a long-term downward trend in the lost-time injury rate.
Definitions
Lost Time Injury: A work-related injury requiring professional medical assessment and treatment and the employee is not able to return to work for their next scheduled shift. Where 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
Cameco’s US and Canadian sites use different criteria to determine absentee rates.
LA12 – Performance 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.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | |
| # of Employees | 2,420 | 730 | 2,535 | 767 | 2,651 | 823 | 2,715 | 859 |
| # of Employees who Receive Performance Reviews | 1,631 | 626 | 1,749 | 662 | 1,845 | 716 | 1,909 | 758 |
| % of Employees who Receive Performance Reviews | 67.40% | 85.75% | 68.99% | 86.31% | 69.60% | 87.00% | 70.31% | 88.24% |
Includes all of Cameco except JV Inkai (Kazakhstan). Figures as of December 31 each year.
What it means
Cameco’s performance management system is guided by four key principles: communication; mutual involvement; consistency; and continual improvement. All of Cameco’s non-unionized employees receive two formal performance and career development reviews each year.
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.
Human Rights
^HR9 – Violations of Indigenous rights
^This indicator provides information about the total number of incidents registered through formal means related to Indigenous rights.
There were no incidents registered through formal means involving violations of Indigenous rights by Cameo during the reporting period.
This indicator includes data from Canada, the US and Australia only.
What it means
Cameco respects the rights of indigenous groups and is working to build on existing relationships by entering into mutually beneficial relationships with certain indigenous groups. In 2012 we signed two such deals with indigenous groups – an indigenous land use agreement with the Martu of Western Australia, and a collaboration agreement with the Northern Village of Pinehouse and the Kineepik Metis Local (Pinehouse). Both of these agreements provide business and employment opportunities, as well as community investment dollars and protections around culturally sensitive areas and mechanisms to collaborate around environmental stewardship.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to work with and respect the rights of indigenous peoples wherever we operate through a variety of mechanisms.
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 social responsibility team as failing to comply with Cameco’s internal policy directives.
MM5 – Proximity 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.
Highlights
-
Operating Sites Adjacent to Indigenous Territories - Cameco currently has:
- four operating sites in northern Saskatchewan adjacent to Traditional Territory; and
- one operating site in Ontario adjacent to Indigenous Lands.
- Two formal agreements with Indigenous communities that apply to its applicable operating sites
- Eighty percent of our operating sites adjacent to Indigenous Territory are subject to a formal agreement with an indigenous community.
This indicator includes data from Canada, the US and Australia only.
What it means
In northern Saskatchewan, Cameco has entered into two formal agreements with indigenous communities. In 1999, we signed an Impact Management Agreement with 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 has also participated in the programming implementation of that agreement but was not a signatory). In 2012, we also signed a Collaboration Agreement with the community of Pinehouse and the Metis Local situated there. We are also negotiating with other First Nation and Metis communities in the area on similar agreements. All of these agreements provide indigenous communities with workforce and business development programs, dedicated engagement programs, community investment monies, and mechanisms to collaborate around environmental stewardship.
- Though not considered here as "formal agreements", Cameco also has:
- several trappers compensation agreements with trappers in northern Saskatchewan who continue to trap on our near our operating sites. These agreements encourage trappers to continue trapping, and provide them with a yearly cash distribution and, for some, an allotment of oil and/or gasoline; and
- a signed memorandum of understanding with the Mississauga First Nation in relation to Cameco's Blind River refinery in Ontario. The MOU commits the parties to work together cooperatively towards mutual gain, and focusses primarily on socio-economic development projects related to youth, education, health and wellness, and community development.
Definitions
Adjacent
Means 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. the interest in "reserve" land in Canada). This may include areas where ownership is claimed by multiple parties; or
- Traditional Territory: Land on which indigenous peoples (a) historically exercised traditional activities (e.g. hunting, fishing, trapping, or gathering) and (b) still do today.
Note
For this year's report, we have changed the definition of Indigenous Territory in order to acknowledge the concept of "traditional territory" in Canada, lands upon which First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples exercise traditional activities generally.
HR11 – Human rights complaints
^This indicator provides information about the number of formal human rights grievances or complaints that have been filed against Cameco in Canada and the US.
What it means
Cameco has a system for ensuring human rights issues and concerns are addressed and resolved in a timely matter. As of the end of this reporting period, Cameco had only one outstanding complaint that had yet to be resolved.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to promote an inclusive and diverse workplace and ensure that employee human rights are protected. When grievances arise, we will continue to pursue a 100% resolution system within one calendar year.
Definitions
Formal grievance or complaint
- a human rights-related union grievance
- a formal respectful workplace complaint
- a complaint filed through a Human Rights Commission by an internal or external stakeholder
Society
^SO1 – Community 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 are carried out by Cameco operations to support Cameco’s ‘supportive communities’ measure of success. This would include activities such as community visits, community meetings, events, web materials, investments, print publications, presentations, etc.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Operations with community engagement activities | 8/9 | 9/9 | 9/9 | 9/9 |
| Percentage of operations with community engagement activities | 89% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Impact assessments
These include socio-economic impact assessments conducted by operations either to meet requirements for environmental impact assessments and/or for standalone local economic impact assessments. These are conducted as required and span an extended timeframe, often over several years.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Operations with Impact assessments | 5/9 | 8/9 | 8/9 | 8/9 |
| Percentage of Operations with Impact assessments | 50% | 89% | 89% | 89% |
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, over several years.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Operations with development programs | 2/9 | 4/9 | 5/9 | 7/9 |
| Percentage of Operations with development programs | 22% | 44% | 55% | 77% |
What it means
Community engagement is an important aspect of operational activities across Cameco sites. Year over year there has been an increase in local community activities, assessments, and programs initiated by our operations. In 2012, we increased the number of community development programs when Cameco signed a collaboration agreement with the Northern Municipality of Pinehouse and the Kineepik Metis Local (Pinehouse). The agreement provides a suite of benefits and commitments to Pinehouse in return for support of our operations if we fulfill our responsibilities outlined in the agreement. The full agreement can be viewed online.
Looking ahead
Changes to the federal Environmental Assessment Act in 2012 have decreased the number of environmental assessments Cameco will have to undertake. Canada’s Environment Minister has determined that these projects are not likely to cause significant environmental effects (i.e. Port Hope’s Vision in Motion project). Cameco will continue to vigorously engage with local communities on all our projects.
Note
For this year’s update, we have not included Corporate office as one of our operating sites in order to be in line with how we define operating sites in all other indicators.
MM6 – Disputes 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 disputes related to land use, customary rights or local communities and Indigenous peoples during the reporting period.
This indicator includes data from Canada, the US and Australia only.
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.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to work with Indigenous groups that have an interest in our operations and ensure that we understand and respect their lands, rights and communities.
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.
SO5 – Public policy, lobbying
^This indicator provides information about Cameco’s involvement in public policy development in Canada, the US, Australia and Kazakhstan, and our marketing and business development interests in emerging markets like China and India.
Overview of reporting period (2009-2012)
Cameco is involved in consultation and discussions with government bodies and regulatory agencies where we operate about public policy positions and laws and regulations that affect our business.
These include:
- climate change and energy
- environmental assessments and oversight
- aboriginal rights and the duty to consult
- a national recovery strategy for the woodland caribou
- nuclear industry rules, regulations and international cooperation
- handling and transportation of hazardous goods
- foreign ownership
We believe that nuclear energy should be the cornerstone of government policy designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions and meet targets for GHG reduction, and we actively promote this position.
Industry associations
Cameco is a member of many industry associations, including, but not limited to:
- the Uranium Producers of America
- the Saskatchewan Mining Association
- the Mining Association of Canada
- the Canadian Nuclear Association
- the World Nuclear Association
- Australian Uranium Association
What it means
On many issues, the success of our company intersects with decisions made by governments at the provincial and federal level, and decisions made by foreign governments. Advocating our positions on issues of key importance to the company is at the core of our efforts to inform government decision making. For example, in 2012 Cameco advocated for the finalization of negotiations and successful implementation of Nuclear Co-operation Agreements with China and India. With growing demand for clean energy both countries have ambitious plans for increasing nuclear power generation and represent important new sources of demand for our products.
SO7 – Legal action (anti-competitive behaviour)
^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.
SO8 – Significant 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.
Between 2009 and 2012, there was one significant fine levied against Cameco for a situation at the majority owned JV Inkai operation in Kazakhstan.
What it means
Cameco owns a majority of Joint venture (JV) Inkai, the operator of the Inkai mine located in Kazakhstan. In 2012, JV Inkai was ordered to pay additionally accrued taxes as a result of: (a) an unfavourable tax inspection arising with respect to JV Inkai’s interpretation of legislative norms related to the deductibility of interest and foreign exchange expenses where loan principle is spent for investment activities or construction; and (b) reduction of VAT offset due to incorrect issuance/signing of tax invoices by JV Inkai vendors. JV Inkai appealed the additional accruals but did not succeed and was ordered to pay the fine. Although these accrued taxes are not considered a fine, JV Inkai was, as a result, required to pay interest penalties in the amount of $234,042 for late payment of said taxes.
Definitions
Significant 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 government laws or regulations, other than environmental laws and regulations.
Note
For this year’s update, we have redefined "significant fine" to be one that is over $100,000, not $50,000 as reported last year. We made this change in order to be consistent with our reporting of significant environmental fines for indicator EN28.
Product Responsibility
^PR4 – Labeling non-compliance
^This indicator provides information about Cameco’s failure to comply with product and dangerous goods labelling requirements defined by transport regulations and reported to regulatory agencies in Canada, the US, Australia and Kazakhstan.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # of Incidents Total | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| # of Incidents resulting in a fine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| # of Incidents resulting in a warning | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
What it means
Over the past four years, Cameco has had only very minor violations of labelling requirements, with none resulting in fines or warnings from any regulator.
2009-10
Minor events involving:
- faded labels
- missing UN numbers
2011
Minor events involving:
- missing UN numbers
- an incorrectly labelled sample shipment
2012
Minor events involving:
- Missing placards for a sample shipment
- missing UN number and improper shipping name
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
PR9 – Sanctions (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 works hard to ensure that the company complies with all transportation and customs regulations wherever we operate.
Definitions
Provision of products
Transportation of products, on or off-site.
Cameco Indicators
^CA1 – Polling (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.
What it means
Cameco continues to enjoy strong support for our operations wherever we operate. 2012 saw all our numbers remain stable in all jurisdictions, except in northern Saskatchewan where we saw a 10 point jump over 2011 back to where our numbers have historically been in the region.
Looking ahead
Cameco will continue to monitor support in all the regions in which we operate. We expect the strong support we receive from the communities in which we operate to continue as we maintain close relationship with these communities and they continue to see strong economic benefits from our operations.
Definitions
The questions our polling companies ask are slightly different in each region:
Saskatchewan and the US
Are you supportive of the continuation of the uranium mining industry in [location]?
Ontario
Are you supportive of the continuation of Cameco’s operations in Port Hope?
CA2 – Average 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.
What it means
Our average radiation dose to workers remains consistently low at under 1 mSv (by comparison, typical background radiation doses to members of the public are 2-3 mSv per year). Cameco exposure rates are far below the maximum annual dosage limit of 50 mSv and 100 mSv over a five-year dosimtery block (note that the US sites do not have this long-term limit in their regulations).
There has been a modest drop in the average dose for the mining and milling sites and the fuel services operations have remained relatively stable over the last four years. The corporate wide average continued to decrease over the 2011 number. This drop was primarily driven by a further increase in the workforce at Cigar Lake who receive low doses and stable to somewhat decreasing average doses at many of the individual sites.
Looking ahead
We will continue to take appropriate measures to limit and monitor radiation exposures at our operations. It is possible that the average dose may increase somewhat as the workforce at Cigar Lake transitions from construction and development activities to production over the next several years.
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 report is the full-time equivalent average, which normalizes the doses to a standard work year of 2000 hours. Both are valid metrics.
CA3 – Annual business scores and ranking
^This indicator provides information about Cameco’s scores and ranking in the Globe and Mail’s Board Games, an annual assessment of corporate governance at more than 200 companies in the S&P/TSX index.
The scoring system includes criteria designed to assess practices that go beyond mandatory governance requirements in the areas of board composition, shareholding and compensation, shareholder rights and disclosure.
This is an externally developed assessment process and the methodology used changes from year to year.
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 85 | 88 | 91 | 91 |
| Ranking | 15 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| / Out of | 157 | 187 | 253 | 244 |
What it means
Cameco continues to score well and receive recognition for our governance practices. Our overall score is stable from 2011 and we’ve remained in the top 15 of companies surveyed since 2009.
CA4 – Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) governance risk indicators
^ISS is an external organization that measures governance risk in four areas: audit practices, board structure, shareholder rights and compensation.
The ISS used a new proprietary model to determine risk in each category in 2010. What they choose to track from year to year changes, to reflect current best practices.
Companies can provide new information at any time, allowing "real-time" risk scoring. ISS reviews company data yearly to ensure authenticity.
2010 - Dec 31| Audit | Board Structure | Shareholder Rights | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score / 100 | 100 | 92 | 73 | 83 |
| Risk Level | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
2011 - Dec 31
| Audit | Board Structure | Shareholder Rights | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score / 100 | 100 | 84 | 79 | 83 |
| Risk Level | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
| Audit | Board Structure | Shareholder Rights | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score / 100 | 100 | 100 | 75.4 | 100 |
| Risk Level | Low | Low | Low | Low |
What it means
Overall, our risk levels have remained low during the reporting period.
Our Board Structure score improved in 2012 because attendance by all of our directors in 2011 was above 75% of board and committee meetings. While our Shareholder Rights score dipped slightly, it remained in the low risk level rating. Finally, our Compensation score improved as a result of Cameco responding to ISS’s concerns regarding our compensation disclosure.