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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Revenues	20121,890,660	20132,438,723	20142,397,532	20152,754,378	20162,431,404
Operating Costs	20121,184,863	20131,634,941	20141,523,724	20151,783,222	20161,734,758
Employee Wages and Benefits	2012453,242	2013462,164	2014464,021	2015507,767	2016487,349
Payments to Providers of Capital	2012201,587	2013224,073	2014236,344	2015227,820	2016228,756
Payments to Government	201235,906	201396,357	2014233,716	201592,758	2016114,669
Community Investments	20125,294	20134,085	20144,279	20153,794	20163,520
Economic Value Retained	20129,768	201317,103	2014-64,552	2015139,017	2016-137,648

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. 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)

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Canada	2012270,834	2013230,505	2014308,327	2015341,568	2016347,536
Germany	2012—	2013232,296	2014174,622	2015276,833	2016181,189
United States	20121,619,826	20131,975,922	20141,914,583	20152,135,977	20161,902,679
Totals	20121,890,660	20132,438,723	20142,397,532	20152,754,378	20162,431,404

What it means

Revenue

In 2016, revenue decreased by 12% compared to 2015 due to lower sales revenues in all of our operating segments as a result of reduced sales volumes related to market conditions. In addition, we had lower revenues in our uranium and NUKEM segments as a result of the lower US dollar average realized price which was the result of lower prices on market-related contracts. This was partially offset by further weakening of the Canadian dollar exchange rate realized on sales during 2016. The realized foreign exchange rate was also 1.32 compared to 1.27 in 2015.

Operating costs

The decrease in 2016 operating costs was due to lower sales volumes in all of our segments, largely offset by:

higher unit cost of sales in the uranium segment as a result of care and maintenance costs and severance costs related to the curtailment of production at Rabbit Lake and our US operations
$18 million net write-down of NUKEM inventory, compared to $3 million net recovery in 2015
Higher administration costs as a result of increased legal costs as we prepared the CRA case for trial and one-time costs related to collaboration agreements

Employee wages and benefits

Employee wages and benefits, including pension and share based compensation costs, decreased from 2015 mainly due to a reduction in the annual employee incentive program, partially offset by additional costs related to the restructuring of the NUKEM segment and the reduction of staffing levels at our corporate office.

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 because 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 a critical issue.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Local employees / total	2012756/1,531	2013747/1,500	2014794/1,600	2015811/1,629	2016704/1,438
% employees from local communities	201249.40%	201349.80%	201449.60%	201549.80%	201649.00%

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Senior managers from local communities / total senior managers	20122 of 28	20132 of 28	20142 of 26	20152 of 24	20163 of 21
% senior management from local communities	20127.10%	20137.10%	20147.70%	20158.33%	201614.28%

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. While our local employment numbers decreased in 2016 as a result of corporate wide staffing reductions, we continue to see nearly 50% of our northern Saskatchewan employee base coming from local communities.

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 nearly $10 million in support of infrastructure improvement projects in local communities. Some of our more significant infrastructure investments in 2016 included:

Community	Region	Amount	Infrastructure/Service
CommunitySaskatoon	RegionSaskatchewan	Amount$200,000.00	Infrastructure/ServiceRonald McDonald House
CommunitySaskatoon	RegionSaskatchewan	Amount$200,000.00	Infrastructure/ServiceRemai Art Gallery
CommunitySaskatoon	RegionSaskatchewan	Amount$83,000.00	Infrastructure/ServiceCameco Community Kitchen Lighthouse
CommunityPort Hope	RegionOntario	Amount$50,000.00	Infrastructure/ServiceHabitat for Humanity – Triplex Unit at 354 Alexandria Drive Cobourg
CommunitySaskatoon	RegionSaskatchewan	Amount$25,000.00	Infrastructure/ServicePersephone Theatre

What it means

2016 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 or payments we make to the Six Rivers Trust.

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, at the time of the study Cameco’s operations were responsible for 12.2% of the employment in northern Saskatchewan. As well, Cameco, through direct and indirect activities, was 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 increased by a total of 2.1 employees by the end of the second year.

Port Hope and Northumberland County

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

indirect employment: 981 jobs
indirect spending: $132 million

Wyoming

At the time of the study, for every uranium job in the mining sector, there were 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 was 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

At the time of the study, for every direct uranium job in the mining sector, there were 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 was 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 and Ontario each year from 2012 to 2016.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Kazakhstan	2012(USD)	2013(USD)	2014(USD)	2015(USD)	2016(CDN)
Total procurement	2012$54,936,635 USD	2013$46,561,825 USD	2014$15,330,067 USD	2015$8,975,450 USD	2016$10,286,189 CDN
Local procurement	2012$38,073,200 USD	2013$42,583,560 USD	2014$14,837,659 USD	2015$8,250,858 USD	2016$9,370,716 CDN
% Local procurement	201269%	201391%	201497%	201592%	201691%
N. Saskatchewan	2012(CDN)	2013(CDN)	2014(CDN)	2015(CDN)	2016(CDN)
Total procurement	2012$629,563,957 CDN	2013$670,539,245 CDN	2014$466,883,286 CDN	2015$392,905,203 CDN	2016$265,667,553 CDN
Local procurement	2012$458,009,603 CDN	2013$451,619,699 CDN	2014$333,493,389 CDN	2015$299,965,204 CDN	2016$210,965,605 CDN
% Local procurement	201273%	201367%	201471%	201576%	201679%
Ontario	2012(CDN)	2013(CDN)	2014(CDN)	2015(CDN)	2016(CDN)
Total procurement	2012$151,589,250 CDN	2013$94,140,859 CDN	2014$89,808,641 CDN	2015$109,445,410 CDN	2016$109,247,983 CDN
Local procurement	2012$92,466,587 CDN	2013$61,592,889 CDN	2014$48,749,026 CDN	2015$51,480,769 CDN	2016$51,737,878 CDN
% Local procurement	201261%	201365%	201454%	201547%	201647%
U.S.	2012(USD)	2013(USD)	2014(USD)	2015(USD)	2016(CDN)
Total procurement	2012N/A	2013N/A	2014N/A	2015$36,186,297 USD	2016$22,034,287 CDN
Local procurement	2012N/A	2013N/A	2014N/A	2015$20,811,775 USD	2016$11,154,100 CDN
% Local procurement	2012N/A	2013N/A	2014N/A	201558%	201651%
Total	2012(CDN)	2013(CDN)	2014(CDN)	2015(CDN)	2016(CDN)
Total procurement	2012$836,089,842 CDN	2013$811,241,929 CDN	2014$572,021,994 CDN	2015$547,512,363 CDN	2016$407,236,013 CDN
Local procurement	2012$588,549,390 CDN	2013$555,796,148 CDN	2014$397,080,074 CDN	2015$380,508,609 CDN	2016$283,228,301 CDN
% Local procurement	201270%	201369%	201469%	201570%	201670%

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 nearly $3.5 billion in services from local companies since 2005. While our overall local procurement spend was down in 2016 due to a lower capital spend in northern Saskatchewan and a reduction in spend related to a halt in new development at our U.S. operations, the proportion of spend that went to local contractors remained consistent with previous years.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total fuel consumption from non-renewable sources (GJ)	20123,195,967	20133,142,650	20143,164,400	20152,928,757	20162,615,945
Total electricity consumption (GJ)	20121,925,894	20132,067,435	20142,202,909	20152,148,446	20162,106,664
Total energy consumption within the organization (GJ)	20125,121,861	20135,210,085	20145,367,309	20155,077,203	20164,722,609

What it means

The energy consumed by Cameco from non-renewable sources was lower in 2016 as compared with previous years largely as a result of a corporate decision to suspend production at the Rabbit Lake operation in northern Saskatchewan and curtail production at Cameco Resources’ US operations by deferring wellfield development. Energy consumption values at all other sites have lowered or are within their historical ranges.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total intake (m³)	201221,673,994	201320,575,308	201418,936,525	201518,320,292	201618,826,979

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.

Since 2012, water withdrawal has been decreasing, mostly due to lower quantities of water discharged at Key Lake. In 2016, water withdrawal was slightly higher than the previous year but is still lower when compared with the five-year trend.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated (hectares)
Year End Total	20123,109	20133,206	20143,361	20153,654	20163,719
Land Disturbed	2012	201397	2014155	2015293	201665

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 are our largest operations by production, have a very small operational footprint and produce a product that provides a very large amounts of energy. For example, in 2016, 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 five square kilometers.

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

Historic data has been restated for this indicator due to one sites’ data being assigned to incorrect 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 CO₂e. For our Canadian and Kazakhstan operations, we have used emission factors published by Environment Canada in 2017 for Canada’s National Inventory Report 1990 – 2015 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Corporate totals of GHG emissions (tonnes CO₂e)
Scope 1 (EN15)	2012195,257	2013195,030	2014198,136	2015181,871	2016159,288

What it means

2016 Scope 1 GHG emissions were lower in 2016 as compared with previous years largely as a result of a corporate decision to suspend production at the Rabbit Lake operation in northern Saskatchewan and curtail production at Cameco Resources’ US operations by deferring wellfield development. Scope 1 GHG emissions at Key Lake and Cigar Lake were also lower than historical values as a result of a reduction in the operation of on-site back-up generators due to an upgraded electrical transmission line becoming operational in 2016 and improvements at Cigar Lake which reduced propane consumption.

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.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Corporate totals of GHG emissions (tonnes CO₂e)
Scope 2 (EN16)	2012317,996	2013324,233	2014350,135	2015340,671	2016322,833

What it means

2016 Scope 2 GHG emissions were lower in 2016 as compared with previous years largely as a result of a corporate decision to suspend production at the Rabbit Lake operation in northern Saskatchewan and curtail production at Cameco Resources’ US operations by deferring wellfield development. Slightly lower emission factors for electricity generated in Saskatchewan and the RMPA eGrid subregion (the Rockies) in the United States where our ISR mining facilities are located also contributed to a slight reduction in Scope 2 GHG emissions.

EN21Air emissions (by type and weight)

This indicator presents the total air emissions from our Canadian operations of nitrogen oxides (NO_x 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 (PM_2.5), 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 NO_x, SO₂, CO, VOCs, PM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Air emissions (tonnes)
Oxides of Nitrogen NO_x (expressed as NO₂)	2012716	2013631	2014589	2015484	2016252
Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)	2012318	2013279	2014269	2015128	2016177
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	2012227	2013483	2014509	2015476	2016437
Volatile Organic Compounds	2012361	2013260	2014237	2015240	2016138
Total Particulate Matter	2012793	2013765	2014788	2015789	2016616
PM₁₀ – Particulate Matter <= 10 microns	2012278	2013300	2014298	2015296	2016244
PM_2.5 – Particulate Matter <= 2.5 microns	201276	201374	201467	201562	201651
Ammonia (NH₃)	201255	201353	201454	201552	201659
Uranium	20120.10	20130.15	20140.50	20150.10	20160.06
Hydrogen Fluoride	20120.64	20130.72	20140.38	20150.43	20160.31

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.

In 2016, emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO_x), volatile organic compounds, and total particulate matter were lower in comparison with previous years. The decline in NO_x emission is attributed to a reduction in the operation of on-site back-up generators due to an upgraded electrical transmission line becoming operational. Lower total particulate matter and associated fractions were lower due to lower vehicle traffic in northern Saskatchewan and the use of a new calculation method for reporting. Lower VOCs are attributed to a reduction in emissions from the solvent extraction circuits at Key Lake.

Ammonia air emissions were higher in 2016 corresponding to an increase in UO₂ production at Cameco’s Port Hope Conversion Facility.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Annual volume (m³)
Discharge of clean diverted water to surface water	20125,826,137	20135,648,676	20145,191,539	20155,374,546	20165,293,214
Discharge of water to municipal treatment facilities	2012209,161	2013320,285	2014403,267	2015172,798	2016144,008
Discharge of clean treated water to surface water	201213,325,241	201312,654,710	201411,758,010	201511,385,931	201612,122,908
Discharge of clean treated water to land application via irrigation	2012110,273	2013144,095	2014139,877	201580,423	201686,467
Discharge of water to deep disposal well	2012877,476	20131,135,900	2014956,554	2015823,646	2016842,917
Discharge of water to evaporation pond	201260,377	201345,701	201426,570	201522,787	201617,512

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Discharged to surface water (kg)
Arsenic	201230.1	201338.5	201437.6	201540.2	201654.1
Copper	201230.0	201341.2	201439.3	201547.2	201631.5
Lead	201212.8	201313.5	201413.0	201510.5	20169.4
Molybdenum	20122,903.7	20131,985.9	20141,824.6	20151,605.9	20161,749.9
Nickel	2012219.1	2013271.6	2014221.4	2015165.4	2016252.2
Radium-226^*	2012212.9	2013241.8	2014206.1	2015268.3	2016252.7
Selenium	201245.0	201345.7	201442.6	201540.0	201636.5
Total suspended solids	201214,734.8	201315,632.9	201413,956.6	201514,344.0	201614,090.3
Uranium	2012322.4	2013319.2	2014248.6	2015303.0	2016363.2
Zinc	201248.9	201337.4	201446.8	201527.5	201634.0
^Radium-226 is reported in MBq*
Discharged to municipal treatment facilities (kg)
Total Uranium	20123.4	20133.6	20148.1	20153.9	20162.7
Treated water discharged to land application via irrigation (kg)
Arsenic	20120.0	20130.2	20140.0	20150.0	20160.0
Selenium	20121.0	20130.8	20142.2	20150.6	20161.9
Uranium	201226.8	201328.3	201477.7	201539.3	201677.9

What it means

Water discharge quantity

The total volume of clean water discharged to surface water was slightly lower in 2016 as compared with 2015, 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 lower in 2016 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 higher in 2016 as compared with 2015, but remained within the range of variation in volume of clean treated water discharged over the five year period. The higher volume in 2016 as compared with 2015 was primarily associated with a higher volume of clean treated water discharged from Key Lake and Rabbit Lake operations.

The total discharge of water to deep disposal was slightly higher in 2016 as compared with 2015, due to higher deep disposal at both Crow Butte and North Butte.

The total discharge of clean treated water to land via irrigation was slightly higher in 2016 as compared with 2015, but remains low compared to historical values.

Water discharge quality

In 2016, 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.

Total uranium loadings were higher in 2016 due to conditions at Rabbit Lake. Uranium concentrations were elevated from late January through early March as a result of a mill maintenance shutdown. Following the suspension of mill production and transition of the effluent treatment system into care and maintenance, a progressive increase in uranium began in late July and increased through the remainder of 2016. This increase was attributed to the transition of the operation into care and maintenance and, specifically, changes in chemistry and increasing clarity of water reporting to the water treatment circuit. Investigation into the causes for the increasing concentrations of uranium began in October 2016 with expanded efforts to develop an optimized approach for the removal of uranium during care and maintenance underway through the end of 2016.

Arsenic loadings were higher in 2016 than in 2015. Commercial production of ore at Cigar Lake commenced in 2015 and continued in 2016, and as a result of mining in high-grade ore, the concentration of metals in treated effluent were elevated as compared to previous years where less or no mining activities were conducted.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total waste (tonnes)
Generated	201224,973	201318,962	201417,610	201518,522	201616,725
Diverted	20124,149	20133,311	20143,404	20155,647	20165,499
Landfilled or stored	201220,824	201315,651	201414,206	201512,875	201611,226
Overall rate of diversion (%)	201217%	201317%	201419%	201530%	201633%
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Generated	20126,159	20135,460	20145,164	20156,374	20163,933
Diverted	20122,252	20131,541	20142,051	20153,759	20161,490
Landfilled or stored	20123,907	20133,919	20143,113	20152,615	20162,443
Rate of diversion (%)	201237%	201328%	201440%	201559%	201638%
Low-level radioactive waste (tonnes)
Generated	201218,442	201313,167	201411,976	201511,591	201612,295
Diverted	20121,626	20131,546	2014970	20151,507	20163,650
Landfilled or stored	201216,815	201311,621	201411,006	201510,084	20168,645
Rate of diversion (%)	20129%	201312%	20148%	201513%	201630%
Hazardous waste (tonnes)
Generated	2012373	2013335	2014470	2015557	2016497
Diverted	2012271	2013223	2014383	2015381	2016359
Managed via treatment/disposal	2012102	2013111	201487	2015176	2016139
Rate of diversion (%)	201273%	201367%	201482%	201568%	201672%

What it means

Low-level radioactive waste generation was higher in 2016 than the previous year. The higher volume reflected is associated with improved tracking of material repurposed (diverted) for use in backfill underground at the northern Saskatchewan operations.

Hazardous waste quantities were slightly lower than the previous year. 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.

Overall, the amount of waste we generated in 2016 was lower than the previous year.

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 includes industrial materials such as protective equipment, paper, cardboard, equipment, tools, metal, plastic, concrete, sand, sludges, insulation and wood.

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.

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 assessment associated with this indicator, although all are complete and provided to our regulators.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Mine waste (tonnes)
Annual tailings and process wastes generated	2012683,134	2013696,204	2014667,128	2015595,717	2016292,945
Annual change in unreclaimed waste rock inventory	20122,998,021	2013-8,629,743	2014-1,282,110	2015-37,541	2016-51,251
Net of wastes created and reclaimed	20123,681,155	2013-8,048,632	2014-614,982	2015558,176	2016241,695

What it means

The amount of tailings and process wastes we produce depends primarily on production rates and ore grades. When we expand production 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 2016, we saw a large reduction in tailings production, primarily because of the suspension of production at Rabbit Lake in April.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total number	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160
Quantity	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160

What it means

Cameco has been focused on minimizing environmental incidents for many years, 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 was transitioned from an incident-based measure to one 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 has 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Significant environmental fines	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160
Non-monetary sanctions	20124	20132	20143	20150	20162

What it means

In 2016, two Notices of Violation were imposed on Cameco’s U.S. operation at Crow Butte by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for non-compliance with two licence conditions: (i) Failure to inspect an evaporation pond and analyze water quality during pond maintenance; and (ii) Failure to submit a written corrective action plan after identifying a pond liner leak. Neither violation had any environmental impact. Corrective action plans for both violations were prepared and approved by the NRC.

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 or above, pursuant to a graduated enforcement regime.

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.

2012			2013			2014			2015			2016
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
228	2,628	6.65%	209	2,535	8.24%	124	2,481	5.00%	147	2,485	5.92%	43	2,210	1.95%
73	803	2.13%	42	739	5.68%	49	724	6.77%	43	736	5.84%	14	672	2.08%
152	994	15.29%	118	920	12.83%	85	865	9.83%	92	835	11.02%	29	664	4.37%
133	1,923	6.92%	114	1,863	6.12%	87	1,822	4.77%	86	1,827	4.71%	26	1,661	1.57%
16	514	3.11%	19	491	3.87%	1	518	0.19%	12	559	2.15%	2	557	0.36%
301	3,431	8.77%	251	3,274	7.67%	173	3,205	5.40%	190	3,221	5.90%	57	2,882	1.98%



Male
Female
Up to 35
36-55
56+
Total

2012			2013			2014			2015			2016
Turnover	Year end	Rate	Turnover	Year end	Rate	Turnover	Year end	Rate	Turnover	Year end	Rate	Turnover	Year end	Rate
200	2,628	5.83%	338	2,535	13.33%	208	2,481	8.38%	157	2,485	6.32%	361	2,210	16.33%
55	803	1.60%	116	739	15.70%	70	724	9.67%	55	736	7.47%	104	672	15.48%
78	994	7.85%	112	920	12.17%	92	865	10.64%	66	835	7.90%	126	664	18.98%
142	1,923	7.38%	207	1,863	11.11%	113	1,822	6.20%	76	1,827	4.16%	209	1,661	12.58%
35	514	6.81%	135	491	27.49%	73	518	14.09%	70	559	12.52%	130	557	23.34%
255	3,431	7.43%	454	3,274	13.87%	278	3,205	8.67%	212	3,221	6.58%	465	2,882	16.13%



Male
Female
Up to 35
36-55
56+
Total

	New hires	Year end	Rate	Turnover	Year end	Rate
2012
Male	New hires228	Year end2,628	Rate6.65%	Turnover200	Year end2,628	Rate5.83%
Female	New hires73	Year end803	Rate2.13%	Turnover55	Year end803	Rate1.60%
Up to 35	New hires152	Year end994	Rate15.29%	Turnover78	Year end994	Rate7.85%
36-55	New hires133	Year end1,923	Rate6.92%	Turnover142	Year end1,923	Rate7.38%
56+	New hires16	Year end514	Rate3.11%	Turnover35	Year end514	Rate6.81%
Total	New hires301	Year end3,431	Rate8.77%	Turnover255	Year end3,431	Rate7.43%
2013
Male	New hires209	Year end2,535	Rate8.24%	Turnover338	Year end2,535	Rate13.33%
Female	New hires42	Year end739	Rate5.68%	Turnover116	Year end739	Rate15.70%
Up to 35	New hires118	Year end920	Rate12.83%	Turnover112	Year end920	Rate12.17%
36-55	New hires114	Year end1,863	Rate6.12%	Turnover207	Year end1,863	Rate11.11%
56+	New hires19	Year end491	Rate3.87%	Turnover135	Year end491	Rate27.49%
Total	New hires251	Year end3,274	Rate7.67%	Turnover454	Year end3,274	Rate13.87%
2014
Male	New hires124	Year end2,481	Rate5.00%	Turnover208	Year end2,481	Rate8.38%
Female	New hires49	Year end724	Rate6.77%	Turnover70	Year end724	Rate9.67%
Up to 35	New hires85	Year end865	Rate9.83%	Turnover92	Year end865	Rate10.64%
36-55	New hires87	Year end1,822	Rate4.77%	Turnover113	Year end1,822	Rate6.20%
56+	New hires1	Year end518	Rate0.19%	Turnover73	Year end518	Rate14.09%
Total	New hires173	Year end3,205	Rate5.40%	Turnover278	Year end3,205	Rate8.67%
2015
Male	New hires147	Year end2,485	Rate5.92%	Turnover157	Year end2,485	Rate6.32%
Female	New hires43	Year end736	Rate5.84%	Turnover55	Year end736	Rate7.47%
Up to 35	New hires92	Year end835	Rate11.02%	Turnover66	Year end835	Rate7.90%
36-55	New hires86	Year end1,827	Rate4.71%	Turnover76	Year end1,827	Rate4.16%
56+	New hires12	Year end559	Rate2.15%	Turnover70	Year end559	Rate12.52%
Total	New hires190	Year end3,221	Rate5.90%	Turnover212	Year end3,221	Rate6.58%
2016
Male	New hires43	Year end2,210	Rate1.95%	Turnover361	Year end2,210	Rate16.33%
Female	New hires14	Year end672	Rate2.08%	Turnover104	Year end672	Rate15.48%
Up to 35	New hires29	Year end664	Rate4.37%	Turnover126	Year end664	Rate18.98%
36-55	New hires26	Year end1,661	Rate1.57%	Turnover209	Year end1,661	Rate12.58%
56+	New hires2	Year end557	Rate0.36%	Turnover130	Year end557	Rate23.34%
Total	New hires57	Year end2,882	Rate1.98%	Turnover465	Year end2,882	Rate16.13%

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 2016, JV Inkai employed 632 people.

What it means

2016 saw a sharp increase in our overall turnover rate as a result of placing our Rabbit Lake operations into care and maintenance and curtailing production at Cameco Resources’ US operations by deferring wellfield development, as well as staff reductions at our other mining and milling sites and corporate office.

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.

MM4Strikes and lockouts (over one 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Number of strikes over 1 week	20120	20130	20141	20150	20160
Number of lock-outs over 1 week	20120	20130	20141	20150	20160

What it means

2016 saw unionized workers at our Port Hope conversion facility agree to a new collective bargaining agreement.

Other sites that have collective bargaining agreements are:

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

Definitions

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Total workers	20123,574	20133,345	20143,324	20153,348	20162,963
Workers represented by joint committees	20123,574	20133,345	20143,324	20153,348	20162,963
% of workers represented in joint committees	2012100%	2013100%	2014100%	2015100%	2016100%

Figures are as of December 31 each year. JV Inkai (Kazakhstan) workforce numbers (632 at the end of 2016) are not represented in the totals, although all employees there are represented by 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Absentee rate (%)	20123.55	20133.35	20143.59	20153.56	20163.43
LTI rate (per 200,000)	20120.11	20130.19	20140.17	20150.22	20160.17
# of fatalities	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160

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, following a stable to somewhat declining trend. There are currently two operations, Blind River and Crow Butte that have in excess of 10 years without an LTI. Five 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
# of employees
M	20122,715	20132,581	20142,559	20152,573	20162,266
F	2012859	2013764	2014765	2015775	2016697
# of employees who receive performance reviews
M	20121,909	20131,811	20141,744	20151,768	20161,532
F	2012758	2013668	2014654	2015667	2016601
% of employees who receive performance reviews
M	201270.31%	201370.17%	201468.15%	201568.71%	201667.61%
F	201288.24%	201387.43%	201485.49%	201586.06%	201686.23%

Figures are as of December 31 each year. JV Inkai (Kazakhstan) employed 632 at the end of 2016, but is not included in this indicator.

What it means

In 2016, Cameco began transitioning to a new performance management program called “Core” which is guided by the following key principles: meaningful conversations around results and behaviours; alignment of employee priorities to corporate objectives; continual improvement; and feedback directed to employee’s growth and development. All non-unionized employees strive for six conversations per year which fosters stronger relationships between supervisors and employees.

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.

LA12Workforce diversity

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
# of employees	20123,239	20133,045	20143,074	20153,106	20162,963
Women	201279624.58%	201370523.15%	201472323.52%	201573323.60%	201669723.52%
Aboriginal	201274022.85%	201372223.71%	201478025.37%	201579225.50%	201668723.19%
Visible minority	20121574.85%	20131484.86%	20141404.55%	20151384.44%	20161274.29%
Persons with disabilities	2012772.38%	2013692.27%	2014632.05%	2015601.93%	2016511.72%

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. 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.

In 2016, we continued moving forward with our workforce diversity improvement plan, including:

Conducting a complete employment systems review of human resources programs, policies and procedures
Establishing a new employment equity plan
Reviewing and making recommendations to modernize the RSN strategy which will be implemented when resources allow
Providing access to personal protective equipment (PPE) specifically designed for female employees at our operations
Conducting unconscious bias training for select corporate office departments
Offering key contributions to the 2016 Women in Mining Canada study “Welcoming to Women – An Action Plan for Canada’s Mining Employers”
Organizing lunch and learn sessions on the topic of diversity, bias and women
Planning for the new respectful workplace campaign launched in 2017
Continuing consultations with various stakeholders within the organization to identify challenges and barriers affecting our diversity and inclusion

Definitions

Aboriginal – An aboriginal person is a North American Indian or a member of a 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
# of incidents registered through formal means	20120	20131	20140	20150	20160

What it means

There were no disputes related to indigenous rights in 2016. 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 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 five 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
Agreement Collaboration Agreements (CAs) (2012, 2013, 2016)	Participants The communities of the Athabasca Basin (including Hatchet Lake, Black Lake and Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nations, along with four northern municipalities) English River First Nation (EFRN) the Northern Village of Pinehouse and the Metis Local situated there Cameco, Areva Resources Canada Inc.	What is involved 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.
Agreement Participation Agreement (2014)	Participants Cree community of Southend, which is part of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation Cameco	What is involved Provides assistance to Southend to increase its 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Number of operations with community engagement activities	201210/10	201310/10	201410/10	201510/10	201610/10
% of operations with community engagement activities	2012100%	2013100%	2014100%	2015100%	2016100%

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Number of operations with impact assessments	20129/10	20139/10	20149/10	20159/10	20169/10
% of operations with impact assessments	201290%	201390%	201490%	201590%	201690%

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 may span an extended timeframe, often over several years.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Number of operations with development programs	20128/10	20138/10	20148/10	20158/10	20168/10
% of operations with development programs	201280%	201380%	201480%	201580%	201680%

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.

2016 saw Cameco renew its partnership with the communities of the Athabasca Basin through the Ya’Thi Nene Collaboration Agreement. Like our other CA’s, this agreement confirms the continued support of the communities historically and traditionally associated with the Cigar Lake, McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake uranium mining operations while providing the communities with annual community investment payments, priority hiring at those operations, dedicated engagement bodies, and continued preference for community-owned businesses.

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	Decommissioning plan10 of 10 (100%)	Total estimated future decommissioning and reclamation costs$1,037 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 in these decommissioning plans depends 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 Cameco 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
# of sanctions	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160
Value of significant fines (USD)	2012$233,528	2013$659,646	20140	20150	2016$1,251,908
# of significant fines	20121	20132	20140	20150	20162

What it means

JV Inkai LLP’s final corporate income tax liability was higher than the amount it submitted on its advance corporate income tax forms. An administrative penalty of 40% of this difference was levied on JV Inkai LLP because the variance was greater than the 20% allowable deviation. Cameco’s share of the penalty was $1,080,000 USD. Additional controls have been put in place at JV Inkai LLP to enhance the corporate income tax advance submission process.
Cameco is currently undergoing a routine audit of provincial sales tax (PST) under The Provincial Sales Tax Act for the period of January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2014. We have been issued a preliminary assessment under this audit for PST on goods and services purchased from a supplier where the tax should have been self-assessed. Pursuant to section 58(1) and 58(1.1) (a) (i) of The Revenue and Financial Services Act, Cameco, is subject to a 10% penalty of the amount assessed. We have made the penalty payment of $171,908 USD as part of a larger partial payment on account as the audit is still ongoing and we continue to submit requests for audit adjustments. Although this assessment is small with respect to the overall spend in that four year time span, additional controls have been put in place at Cameco to enhance our corporate knowledge and our procure to pay process with respect to the application of PST in the province. In addition, we continue to work closely with the province to strengthen our knowledge of PST and to continue to improve our audit results going forward.

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 – An 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 U.S., Australia and Kazakhstan.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
# of incidents reported to regulatory agencies (total)	20122	20134	20145	20150	20163
Resulting in a fine	20120	20130	20140	20150	20160
Resulting in a warning	20120	20132	20142	20150	20163

What it means

2016 saw three labelling non-compliances, all of which resulted in warnings from regulators. They were:

Transport Canada Inspection at the Saskatoon Transit Warehouse. Safety mark displayed on a UN3266 means of containment was not visible (blue sticker covering specification mark).
Transport Canada Inspection at McClean Lake. Faded placard on slurry tote
Transport Canada Inspection at Rabbit Lake. A few cylinders, with the most included in UN1049 and UN1072, were found to have faded or completely colorless labels.

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.

What it means

In 2016 Cameco received a Notice of Penalty Assessment from Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in regards to a uranium concentrate shipment which exported from Canada at the Huntingdon, B.C. border crossing. The assessment indicated Cameco did not provide their Global Affairs Canada (GAC) permit number with their Canadian Automated Export Declaration (CAED) entries. Value of the penalty was $150.00 CAD.

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 U.S.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Public support %	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Saskatchewan	201281	201379	201479	201586	201681
Northern SK	201277	201376	201479	201581	201677
Ontario	201289	201387	201484	201588	201689
Nebraska	201270	201369	201470	201562	201673
Wyoming	201285	201389	201487	201591	201688

What it means

The majority of Cameco’s operations continue to see strong support from the communities where we operate despite the impacts of a depressed uranium market. In 2016, we saw both increases (Ontario and Nebraska) and decreases (Saskatchewan and Wyoming) in the levels of community support near our operations but all within the normal historical range.

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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Avg. radiation dose (mSv)	20120.72	20130.72	20140.85	20150.82	20160.75

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 dose 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). Doses for 2016 by division and corporately were comparable to historic values, though somewhat lower than recent years. The reduction in doses was in part related to a reduction in production and some facilities and a reduction in staffing.

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.