proposal increase in nominal annual production …€¦ · a proposal to increase nominal annual...

PROPOSAL INCREASE IN NOMINAL ANNUAL

PRODUCTION LIMIT TO 9.6 M KG U (25 M LBS U3O8)

McArthur River

April 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EX

EC

UT

IVE

SU

MM

AR

Y

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production Limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cameco Corporation (Cameco)’s McArthur River operation is an underground uranium mine that commenced operations in 1999. Cameco, with 69.8 percent (%) ownership, is the operator and licensee of the McArthur River operation. AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (AREVA) owns 30.2 percent of the McArthur River operation. Cameco’s head office is in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The McArthur River operation is located approximately 630 kilometres (km) northeast of Saskatoon, near the eastern boundary of the Athabasca Basin. Cameco anticipates that the McArthur River operation will continue to safely and reliably produce uranium from the McArthur River deposit until economic extraction can no longer continue.

Cameco is requesting approval under Subsection 16 (2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for an increase in the nominal annual production limit for the McArthur River operation to 9.6 million (M) kilograms (kg) uranium (U) (25 M pounds (lbs) U3O8). This increase in nominal annual production limit will provide operational flexibility to the McArthur River operation, and allow the facility to remain a low cost producer. Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act allows the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment (SkMOE) to issue a Ministerial Approval for the proposed change to the approved development (i.e., the McArthur River operation), and impose any terms and conditions considered advisable, without requiring the environmental assessment (EA) process to be undertaken again.

Production capacity at the McArthur River operation is variable and dependent on many factors. Variation in ore grade, the spatial extent of the underground mine and the number of active mining zones influence the activities required to mine and process uranium ore. These activities are routinely performed at the McArthur River operation and the associated risks are well understood and controlled.

The McArthur River operation has been safely and reliably mining uranium ore for 15 years, and has steadily increased annual production since 2010. During this time period, the quarterly production rate has met or exceeded 2.4 M kg U (i.e., 25% of 9.6 M kg U) five times. In addition, during this time period, McArthur River has demonstrated strong and improving performance in relation to protection of the environment as well as the health, safety and security of the public and workers. As such, the existing programs, criteria, and controls outlined above have proven to be sufficient in order to maintain the successful operating performance of the McArthur River operation at a production rate of up to 9.6 M kg U annually.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ENGAGING FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

Cameco engages interested parties (or potentially interested parties) regarding proposed projects and activities through a variety of specific engagement methods. Cameco has developed and continues to implement a public participation plan for our northern Saskatchewan operations. This engagement is designed to ensure opportunities for interested parties to provide feedback and/or to identify relevant concerns in relation to the McArthur River operation; and to ensure that relevant feedback and/or concerns are considered and addressed.

Cameco Corporation Page 1

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production Limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Executive Summary In December 2014, the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U was presented to Pinehouse and the English River First Nation (ERFN). Members from the Pinehouse Joint Implementation Engagement Subcommittee (JIES) and the ERFN Joint Implementation Engagement and Environment Subcommittee (JIEES) attended the meetings along with youth from Pinehouse. The presentation gave the representatives an opportunity to discuss the application, raise concerns, and for those concerns to be addressed by Cameco. Subsequent to the presentation, Pinehouse and ERFN indicated their support of the proposed increase in nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U at the McArthur River operation through letters of support to Cameco, which are appended to this proposal.

Cameco will continue to engage the public through ongoing public information programs, and to meet regularly with both the Pinehouse JIES and ERFN JIEES to provide updates and to continue to ensure a clear understanding of Cameco’s operations.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The existing biophysical environment in which McArthur River operation operates is well understood due to the abundance of data that have been collected since the establishment of pre-operational baseline conditions in the late 1980s. Monitoring data is collected at the McArthur River operation through the ongoing environmental monitoring program, environmental effects monitoring program, and special investigations. Status of the environment reports are submitted every five years to regulatory agencies, and summarize the results of environmental monitoring and special investigation data in comparison to the predictions made in the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the McArthur River Project, including the 1995 EIS and the 1996 Addendum, as well as the 2005 ecological risk assessment (ERA) that focused on the Read Creek drainage system.

This proposal summarizes operating data from 2010 to 2014 to demonstrate that environmental performance at the McArthur River operation has remained within previously predicted and assessed values regardless of the annual production rates which have been steadily increasing.

Atmospheric emissions from current mining activities at the McArthur River operation include emissions of radon and/or dust, and combustion gases. Air quality monitoring conducted at routine sampling locations at the McArthur River operation demonstrates that there are no contributions of mining activity to changes in air quality beyond the surface lease boundary.

The McArthur River operation is developed on flat lying sandstones and conglomerates that have been eroded through historical glaciations. The topography in the region is dominated by drumlinized morainal features composed of a shallow layer of unsorted, stony glacial drift over sandstone. The glacial drift is largely unsaturated, presently, due to dewatering activities around the three shafts. In the sandstone, groundwater depths vary from 520 to 530 metres above sea level (masl), with a localized cone of depression related to shaft dewatering.

Treated water is discharged into Read Creek via the conveyance channel and eventually enters the waters of May Creek, and Yalowega Lake. Flows in the Read Creek drainage system have remained within the range of natural variation, indicating no effect of the McArthur River treated water on surface hydrology in the Read Creek drainage system. The quality of the discharged mine water is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements and effects on water and


McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production Limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Executive Summary sediment quality are consistent with or better than predictions made in the 2005 ERA. In addition, McArthur River operation has implemented continuous improvement initiatives to reduce the volume of water released to the Read Creek drainage system and the concentrations of molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se) and uranium (U) in the treated water. Substantial reductions in mass loadings of Mo, Se and U have been observed resulting in a downward trend in concentrations of these constituents of potential concern in water since 2005. To-date, monitoring results indicate that McArthur River operation is not having a measurable impact on the benthic invertebrate communities in the downstream environment, or causing a risk to fish health. Results of special investigations on muskrat and avian species due to identification of a potential risk to aquatic wildlife species show that risks are low.

The surface disturbance of the McArthur River operation is approximately 170 hectares, which represents approximately 12 percent of the surface lease area. Progressive reclamation is practiced by the McArthur River operation. No surface disturbance has occurred in areas where rare or uncommon plant species were historically identified, and access to the area is restricted to existing lease holders.

McArthur River operation has formalized programs in place to foster and promote a strong safety culture for all employees and contractors in order to keep safety and health hazards as low as reasonably achievable with social and economic factors taken into account. No appreciable changes to these programs are anticipated as a result of the proposed increase in annual production to 9.6 M kg U.

Radiological exposure is managed through an extensive radiological monitoring and reporting program. Exposures are currently well within regulatory limits and no appreciable changes to exposures are expected as a result of the proposed increase in annual production to 9.6 M kg U.

Cameco has made a long term commitment to northern communities that have resulted in increasing levels of skills, employment and business participation in the mining sector and in other economic activity in the north. Land and resource users in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation are generally traditional and domestic resource users and commercial and recreational users. Access to the McArthur River operation is controlled by a security gate at the Key Lake operation, and only those individuals or groups identified on an access list are allowed to use the road.

Heritage resource reconnaissance surveys have been completed for the McArthur River site area and the McArthur River haul road. Heritage sites identified have not been affected by the activities of the McArthur River operation.


McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production Limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Executive Summary POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

There are no physical changes to the McArthur River operation, or its approved operational activities or management systems specific to this request. The proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U can be achieved utilizing the existing facilities and by continuing to maintain and optimize the strong controls in place to manage and monitor the previously assessed and approved impacts to the environment, and worker health and safety.

An analysis was completed to determine the potential radiological risk associated with an increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U. This analysis and review determined that the potential incremental dose contributions associated with production of up to 9.6 M kg U annually are small and are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall average effective dose received by workers at the McArthur River operation. Further, the analysis concluded that the potential risk will be effectively mitigated through current processes and that no additional mitigation measures will be needed to facilitate an increase in the nominal annual production limit of 9.6 M kg U.

CONCLUSION

Cameco is requesting approval through Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for a proposed change to the terms and conditions of the existing Ministerial Approval for the McArthur River operation. This change involves an increase in the nominal annual production limit at the McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) (a 13 percent increase above the currently approved limit of 8.5 M kg U (22 M lbs U3O8)). The proposed change can be achieved with existing facilities, activities and management systems in place at the McArthur River operation and along the approved transportation corridor between McArthur River operation and Key Lake operation. Cameco provides a summary of the proposed production increase and the associated potential residual environmental effects in the proposal. This information supports Cameco’s view that a Ministerial Approval could be issued pursuant to Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for the proposed production increase. This is based on the following: • The proposed change does not pose any new or significant environmental risks and will not

constitute significant changes to the environmental impacts previously reviewed and approved at the McArthur River operation.

• The proposed production limit increase is supported by the public based on the engagement conducted by Cameco to date. Letters of support for this proposal have been provided to Cameco and appended to this proposal. Therefore, further public review is not necessary.

• The proposed changes can be regulated through the terms and conditions of the previous approval and subsequent Ministerial approvals and the terms and conditions forming parts of the permits, licences and approvals for the respective changes required by provincial legislation.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TA

BL

E O

F C

ON

TE

NT

S

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SCHEDULE................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 APPROVAL REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (SASKATCHEWAN) ................................................................................................... 1 1.4 PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS/APPROVALS ..................................................................... 3 1.5 CURRENT APPROVALS ............................................................................................. 3 1.6 CONTACT INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT ........ 5

2.1 LOCATION OF THE MCARTHUR RIVER OPERATION .................................................. 5 2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MCARTHUR RIVER OPERATION ................................................. 8

2.2.1 Overview of the McArthur River Deposit .................................................. 8 2.2.2 Mining Methods .......................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Mining Facilities ......................................................................................... 9 2.2.4 Ore Processing Facilities........................................................................... 10 2.2.5 Surface Support Facilities ......................................................................... 11 2.2.6 Waste Management Facilities ................................................................... 12 2.2.7 Access and Transportation ........................................................................ 14 2.2.8 Decommissioning and Reclamation ......................................................... 17 2.2.9 Emergency Response ................................................................................ 17

2.3 PROPOSED CHANGE IN A DEVELOPMENT: INCREASE IN ANNUAL PRODUCTION TO 9.6 M KG U (25 M LBS U3O8) ................................................................................. 17

3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ENGAGING FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES ........................................................................................... 19

3.1 MCARTHUR RIVER ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................... 19 3.2 ENGAGEMENT ON PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE NOMINAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION LIMIT INCREASE TO 9.6 M KG U (25M LBS U3O8) .................................................. 19 3.3 OUTCOMES AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................. 21

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .......................................... 22

4.1 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 22 4.2 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 22 4.3 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Treated Water............................................................................................ 23 4.3.2 Downstream Environment ........................................................................ 28

4.4 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 29 4.5 WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................. 30

4.5.1 Conventional Health and Safety ............................................................... 30 4.5.1 Radiation Protection.................................................................................. 31

4.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 31 4.7 HERITAGE RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 33 4.8 REGIONAL EFFECTS MONITORING ......................................................................... 33

Cameco Corporation i

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Table of Contents 5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................... 34

6.0 MONITORING ............................................................................................................... 35

7.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 36

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2-1 Solid Waste, McArthur River Operation, 2009 to 2014 .................................. 12

Table 2.2-2 Quantity of Hazardous Waste, McArthur River Operation, 2009 to 2014 ...... 14

Table 2.2-3 Summary of Historical Traffic Related to the McArthur River Operation, 2007 to 2014 ............................................................................................................. 16

Table 2.3-1 Annual Production at the McArthur River operation, 2007 to 2014 ............... 18

Table 2.3-2 Production Statistics in Quarters Over 2.4 M kg U ......................................... 18

Table 4.3-1 Station 2.1 Average Treated Water Concentrations of Key COPCs, and Total Flow Volumes at Station 2.1 compared to Previously Assessed Values ......... 27

Table 4.3-2 Station 2.1 and 2.7 Total Key COPCs Loadings at Station 2.1 and Station 2.7 compared to Previously Assessed Values ....................................................... 27

Table 4.3-3 Production Statistics and Treated Water Discharge Volumes and Concentrations of U, Mo and Se at Station 2.1 in Quarters with Production over 2.4 M kg U ....................................................................................................... 28

Table 4.3-4 Mean COPC Concentrations in Quarters with Production over 2.4 M kg U vs. Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) Predictions ....................................... 28

Table 4.5-1 McArthur River Injury Severity and Frequency 2010- 2014 .......................... 31

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1-1 McArthur River Operation Location Map .......................................................... 6

Figure 2.1-2 McArthur River Operation Surface Lease Overview Map ................................. 7

Figure 4.3-1 Treated Water Mean Molybdenum Concentrations and Total Loadings ......... 25

Figure 4.3-2 Treated Water Mean Selenium Concentrations and Total Loadings ................ 25

Figure 4.3-3 Treated Water Mean Uranium Concentrations and Total Loadings ................. 25

Figure 4.3-4 Treated Water Discharge Volumes and U Production ..................................... 26

Cameco Corporation ii

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Table of Contents

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1A Letter from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, November 2012

Appendix 3A Community Presentation December 2014, Comments and Responses

Appendix 3B Letters of Support from the Village of Pinehouse and the English River First Nation

Appendix 4A Supplemental Information on the Existing Environment

Appendix 5A Radiological Dose Assessment

Cameco Corporation iii

SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The McArthur River operation is an underground uranium mine located approximately 630 kilometres (km) northeast of Saskatoon. Cameco Corporation (Cameco), with 69.8 percent (%) ownership, is the operator and licensee of the McArthur River operation. AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (AREVA) owns 30.2 percent of the McArthur River operation. Cameco’s head office is in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Cameco anticipates that the McArthur River operation will continue to safely and reliably produce uranium from the McArthur River deposit until economic extraction can no longer continue.

Work to sustain current and future mine production at the McArthur River operation is ongoing as part of the life of mine planning process. The life of mine plan is guided by the company’s core values that place safety and environment, people, integrity and excellence at the forefront of Cameco’s business decisions. In order to achieve McArthur River’s long term life of mine plans, Cameco intends to now pursue safely increasing the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 million (M) kilograms (kg) of uranium (U). The proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit constitutes a change in the approved development under Section 16 of The Environmental Assessment Act (Saskatchewan).

Increased production can be achieved via the currently approved facilities and activities, which are well understood and managed as part of the licensed operation. As such, the existing management systems in place at McArthur River will ensure that the proposed change is successfully implemented, and maintains Cameco’s commitment to worker health and safety and a clean environment.

1.2 Schedule

There are no changes to the existing facility, its operation or integrated management systems specific to this request. Therefore, there is no schedule related to this request. If the requested approval of a change in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) is approved by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (SkMOE) as proposed by Cameco, then Cameco will determine current and future production targets accordingly through the life-of-mine planning process.

1.3 Approval Required Pursuant to The Environmental Assessment Act (Saskatchewan) By way of this application, the McArthur River operation is requesting approval for a proposed change in the specifications included in the terms and conditions of the existing Ministerial Approval for the McArthur River operation issued June 15, 2004. The June 2004 Ministerial Approval authorizes the McArthur River operation to mine uranium ore at the McArthur River mine at a rate of 8.5 M kg U per year. The proposed change involves an increase in the approved nominal annual production limit of the McArthur



River operation from 8.5 M kg of U (22 M pounds (lbs) U3O8) to 9.6 M kg of U (25 M lbs U3O8). No changes to existing facilities or activities are required to achieve the proposed production increase.

Cameco is requesting Ministerial Approval under Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U at the approved McArthur River operation. This subsection of The Environmental Assessment Act allows the SkMOE to issue a Ministerial Approval for the proposed change to the approved development (i.e., the McArthur River operation), and impose any terms and conditions considered advisable, without requiring the environmental assessment (EA) process to be undertaken again.

To provide some context, Cameco has a Ministerial Approval from the SkMOE that was granted pursuant to Section 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act on June 15, 2004 to increase production at McArthur River and Key Lake operations to 8.5 M kg of U (22 M lbs U3O8). The Ministerial Approval was granted without requiring Cameco to seek approval through the EA process in response to information provided by Cameco in 2002 and 2004.

On May 13, 2014, Cameco was granted approval for an increase in the tailings placement elevation in the Deilmann Tailings Management Facility (DTMF) and an increase in nominal annual production to 9.6 M kg U at the Key Lake operation through the Key Lake Extension Project.

Cameco received correspondence from the SkMOE dated November 23, 2012 based on an overview of the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit that a Ministerial Approval under Subsection 16(2)(a) could be obtained (Appendix 1A). In accordance with this feedback, Cameco has developed this submission. This application is therefore with respect to a proposed nominal annual production limit increase at the McArthur River operation only, but that reflects the current approval for the Key Lake operation.

In this proposal, Cameco provides a summary of the proposed nominal annual production limit increase and the associated potential environmental effects. This information supports Cameco’s view that a Ministerial Approval could be issued pursuant to Subsection 16 (2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for the proposed production limit increase. This is based on the following:

• The proposed change does not pose any new or significant environmental risks and will not constitute significant changes to the environmental impacts previously reviewed and approved at the McArthur River operation.




McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 1 1.4 Previous Assessments/Approvals

In 1996, Cameco completed the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the McArthur River Project. This EIS, consisting of the main submission made in October 1995 (the 1995 EIS) and an addendum submitted in June 1996 (the 1996 Addendum), provided an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with: the mining of the uranium ore from the McArthur River mine; the milling of McArthur River ore at the Key Lake operation; the disposal of the resultant tailings in the DTMF; and the conversion of the DTMF to a sub-aqueous tailings management facility.

The McArthur River EIS was reviewed by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan. The Panel recommended that the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan approve the McArthur River Project in February 1997. Federal and provincial approvals for the project were subsequently received in the summer of 1997.

Cameco submitted a project proposal in December 2002 to the SkMOE (then Saskatchewan Environment) to increase production to 8.5 M kg U (22 M lbs U3O8) at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations. The SkMOE responded, after review of additional information provided in January 2004, that the proposed changes were environmentally acceptable and issued a Ministerial Approval under The Environmental Assessment Act to increase production to 8.5 M kg U at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations on June 15, 2004.

1.5 Current Approvals

The McArthur River operation is currently licensed to operate by the SkMOE under the following authorizations:

• Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities P014-090; • Permit to Operate a Waterworks 61822-00-00; and • Permit to Operate a Sewage Works 00050850-01-01.

The McArthur River operation is also federally licensed to operate by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) under UMOL-MINE-MCARTHUR.00/2023 that was issued on October 29, 2013 and is valid from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2023.

In addition to the operating authorizations issued by the authorities listed above, the McArthur River operation is regulated by provincial and federal legislation governing all aspects related to the McArthur River operation, and transportation of goods.


McArthur River Operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 1 1.6 Contact Information

The business address of Cameco and the contact personnel for this application are identified below:

Operator Cameco Corporation 2121 - 11th Street West Saskatoon, SK S7M 1J3

Senior Coordinator, Compliance and Licensing, McArthur River operation

Trent Hamilton Mine Site Office: (306) 633-2001 ext. 8631 Email: [email protected]

Lead, Environmental Leadership, Environmental Affairs and Regulatory Relations

Kirsten Ketilson Corporate Office: (306) 385-5523 Email: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 1A

APP

EN

DIX

1A

SECTION 2.0

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT

DE

SCR

IPT

ION

OF

TH

E P

RO

POSE

D

CH

AN

GE

IN T

HE

DE

VE

LO

PME

NT


2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposed change in the development is an increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) at the McArthur River operation. No changes to the existing facility or its integrated management systems and processes are required to facilitate the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit. This section is organized in the following manner:

• Section 2.1 identifies the location of the existing McArthur River operation; • Section 2.2 provides a brief description of the existing McArthur River operation,

including facilities and management systems that are employed to keep safety and health hazards, including radiation exposures and environmental risks as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into consideration. These systems enable the McArthur River operation to effectively manage the licensed facility and any necessary modifications in compliance with legal and other requirements; and

• Section 2.3 presents further information on the proposed change in the development: an increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8).

2.1 Location of the McArthur River operation

The McArthur River operation is located approximately 630 km northeast of Saskatoon, near the eastern boundary of the Athabasca Basin (Figure 2.1-1).

Under the McArthur River Surface Lease Agreement 2010, the Government of Saskatchewan has leased 1,425 ha of crown land located at the following approximate universal transverse mercator (UTM) grid location: Zone 13/6402500 m North/497500 m East. The boundaries of the surface lease and the developed area are illustrated in Figure 2.1-2. The proposed increase in nominal annual production limit will be achieved with existing facilities and processes operating within the surface lease boundary for the McArthur River operation, and along the approved transportation corridor between the McArthur River and Key Lake operations.



Figure 2.1-1: McArthur River Operation Location Map



Figure 2.1-2: McArthur River Operation Surface Lease Overview Map

Cameco Corporation


2.2 Overview of the McArthur River Operation

McArthur River operation is an underground uranium mine that began operations in 1999 and had produced approximately 104.2 M kg of U (271.4 M lbs U3O8) by the end of 2014. Mining at the McArthur River operation is focused on the McArthur River deposit situated approximately 500 to 640 m below surface. The mining process at McArthur River operation involves extracting high-grade ore (> 2% U3O8), grinding and thickening the ore underground, and pumping it in slurry form to surface. Low-grade mineralization (<2% U3O8) that is not used in the underground processing circuit and non-mineralized rock is skipped to surface as a solid. Ore slurry is loaded into specially designed containers at surface and transported by truck on an all-weather gravel road to Cameco’s Key Lake operation, located approximately 80 km to the southwest. Low grade mineralization is also shipped to Key Lake to be used for blend material using covered highway haul trucks.

The McArthur River operation is provincially licensed to operate pollutant control facilities through Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities P014-090. This includes facilities associated with the operation of the facility, transportation of ore to the Key Lake operation, air pollution monitoring and/or abatement equipment, a landfill used for the disposal of domestic and industrial waste, and hazardous substances and waste dangerous goods storage facilities associated with the McArthur River operation.

Cameco employs integrated management systems and processes to keep safety and health hazards, including radiation exposures, and environmental risks as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into consideration. These systems enable the McArthur River operation to effectively manage the licensed facility and any necessary modifications in compliance with legal and other requirements.

Brief descriptions of the existing facilities and processes that form the McArthur River operation are included here. The purpose of this information is to provide a general description of the existing facility layouts, processes, and management systems that form the basis of current and previous approvals for the McArthur River operation. These facilities, processes, and management systems will continue to be implemented in a safe and reliable manner to achieve the proposed increase in nominal annual production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8).

2.2.1 Overview of the McArthur River Deposit

In the EIS prepared for the McArthur River Project in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 EIS), the McArthur River deposit was described as an ore body characterized by discrete areas of high-grade mineralization with discontinuous zones of low-grade mineralization in between. Although the understanding of the extent of the deposit has evolved with additional surface and underground exploration, the basic understanding of the McArthur River deposit remains consistent. The 1995 EIS included a description of the economic characteristics of the deposit (i.e., estimate of reserves and resources, delineated zones, strike length). This description was provided to outline the economic feasibility associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the McArthur River operation, and the haul road between the McArthur River and Key Lake



operations. The estimate of total mineral reserves and resources has been and continues to be revised on a regular basis based on ongoing surface and underground exploration of the McArthur River deposit.

2.2.2 Mining Methods

The McArthur River operation employs a number of mining methods to extract ore as well as to develop the underground workings of the mine. Current mining methods include raiseboring, boxhole boring and drill and blast mining (stope mining). Various extraction methods will continue to be investigated through the life of mine planning process at the operation, and will be implemented as necessary.

The risks are well understood and the controls are adequate for current and future mining areas at the McArthur River operation.

2.2.3 Mining Facilities

Mining facilities at the McArthur River operation are located underground, and on the surface mine site. Three shafts connect the underground workings to the surface: Shaft number (No.) 1 (ventilation supply and access into the mine for both people and materials); Shaft No. 2 (ventilation exhaust); and Shaft No. 3 (ventilation supply and exhaust as well as secondary access into the mine).

Management systems are in place at the McArthur River operation to control identify, reduce and mitigate the risks associated with mining related to water inflow, radiation, and ground stability. Different measures are considered for each area of the mine because Cameco recognizes that each has its own unique challenges and risks, and that no single method can be used for risk mitigation. These assessments include evaluations of area-specific risk, modeling of the area for ground support, interdepartmental co-ordination of activities, and a third party review of the proposed ground support and development parameters.

Engineering controls used at the McArthur River operation to limit radiation exposure of workers include minimizing development in ore whenever possible and practical, shielding of gamma sources, direct exhaust ventilation in dust or radon source areas, negative ventilation of radon gas sources, remote technology whenever possible and practical, and ground freezing and pressure grouting to prevent entry of radon bearing water. The effectiveness of these controls is monitored on a routine basis and they have shown that exposures to radiation are as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into account (ALARA).

At the McArthur River operation, ventilation requirements are driven by the Radiation Code of Practice referred to in the Radiation Protection Program, The Mines Regulations, 2003 established pursuant to The Saskatchewan Employment Act, industry best practices and standards, and the ALARA principle. Adequate ventilation is provided to all underground work areas to control airborne radiation hazards and emissions from diesel equipment operations. Ventilation consists of a primary ventilation system, and secondary ventilation systems that together deliver air to the underground workings in the



mine. Currently, mine air is exhausted through Shaft No. 2 and Shaft No. 3. McArthur River operation is currently evaluating strategies to optimize the ventilation system as a part of the life of mine planning process.

Mine development techniques in medium and high risk areas include ground freezing, pressure grouting, and additional ground supports to minimize risk. Ground freezing is used at the McArthur River operation to isolate the mine workings from the water bearing sandstone. The underground freezing is delivered through a brine distribution system that has chilling provided by a surface ammonia freeze plant located on the mine terrace, to the north of Shaft No. 1. An expansion to the existing surface freeze plant was recently completed, and additional freeze capacity is currently planned to meet current life of mine plans.

All water required for underground operations is provided from shaft water originating from the sandstone formation. Water is collected from the bottom of the shafts, pumped to clear water dams for storage, and further pumped throughout the underground distribution network for use in the underground processes. The McArthur River operational dewatering system collects and pumps water that is not used underground to surface. All mine and process water collected from Shaft No. 1, underground workings, Shaft No. 2, and underground operations is transferred through the dewatering system to the mine water treatment plant on surface. Clean groundwater from Shaft No. 3 that is not required for industrial use is directly discharged to the environment. The contingency dewatering system utilizes a variety of sumps, pump stations and pipes to direct water out of the mine and has sufficient capacity to dewater the mine should an inflow event occur.

Other mining facilities at the McArthur River operation include a surface batch plant and associated concrete distribution slick lines, and explosives storage magazines. At the surface batch plant, cement, sand, aggregate, and water are mixed into various concrete products and transferred to a concrete truck. Once underground the concrete is delivered for various uses including backfill, construction, or shotcrete for ground support. The McArthur River operation uses explosives for mine development. Explosives are stored in licensed magazines in an isolated area to the west of the mine terrace in the vicinity of Toby Lake and underground in licensed cap and powder storage areas.

2.2.4 Ore Processing Facilities

Ore processing facilities at the McArthur River operation include an underground ore processing circuit and a surface facility where slurry is loaded into specially designed totes (slurry load out (SLO) facility). The underground ore processing circuit grinds ore from the coarse ore storage areas and processes it into a fine particle size that is suitable for pumping to surface and amenable for further processing at the Key Lake operation’s mill. At the SLO facility, the ore slurry from underground is mixed and blended to a targeted U3O8 content, and then thickened. The blended and thickened ore slurry is pumped directly to the specially designed transport containers, which are used for transport to the Key Lake operation.

Specific controls are in place at the McArthur River operation to ensure that radiation protection of individuals and the protection of the environment are maintained through



the processing of the high-grade uranium ore. These controls are part of the specific steps, equipment and procedures that are undertaken to process uranium ore safely through the underground circuit and the surface facility.

2.2.5 Surface Support Facilities

There are several surface support facilities at the McArthur River operation, including: power supply and stand-by generation facilities; potable water treatment and fresh water storage; fuel storage and distribution; administration complex, shops and warehouses for the maintenance and storage of goods; and a camp complex.

The McArthur River operation is serviced by a SaskPower branch line that is connected to the main power transmission line. A replacement of the existing electrical substation and stand-up generation facilities is underway to meet planned electrical demand for approved and licensed activities, and to provide sufficient back-up power to continue meeting Cameco’s commitments to the health and safety of its workers and the environment when the power grid is down.

Toby Lake supplies fresh water for the potable water treatment plant at the McArthur River operation, and also provides some of the water needed for surface industrial operations. The McArthur River operation is authorized to draw surface water and operate associated works by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency in accordance to The Water Security Agency Act and to operate a waterworks by the SkMOE pursuant to The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002. The McArthur River operation recently installed a new potable water treatment system involving a new potable human consumptive waterworks that utilizes membrane ultrafiltration technology.

The McArthur River operation also recently altered existing infrastructure to divert clean groundwater from Shaft No. 3 for surface industrial use, thus reducing the consumption of water from Toby Lake.

All facilities at the McArthur River operation are heated using propane or electrical heat. Diesel fuel and gasoline are also required for the McArthur River operation of service vehicles and are stored and dispensed from a dual contained storage tank and single walled tanks surrounded by a lined plastic secondary containment berm, respectively. Jet fuel required for airplanes is stored and dispensed at the air strip from dual contained storage tanks.

The administration complex at the McArthur River operation contains a surface maintenance shop, warehouse, health clinic, wash/change facilities, offices, emergency response team room and storage, ambulance and fire truck bays, and meeting and conference rooms. Surface shops house materials and space for tradespeople on the site.

The camp complex provides meals and accommodations for all personnel at the McArthur River operation during their time at site.



2.2.6 Waste Management Facilities

Wastes generated at the McArthur River operation are grouped into one of four categories: solid waste, wastewater, low grade mineralization and non-mineralized waste rock, and hazardous substances. Management methods and facilities for each of these types of waste are described below:

2.2.6.1 Solid Waste

Solid waste materials at the McArthur River operation originate from industrial and domestic sources. The waste management program encourages the 4Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle and recover) to reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring final disposal. The McArthur River operation utilizes an onsite landfill for disposal of non-contaminated domestic and industrial materials. Radioactively contaminated domestic and industrial materials are stored in the transfer station bays or on the mine site prior to shipment to an approved waste management facility at the Key Lake operation for final disposal. The quantity of solid waste landfilled or diverted on an annual basis is dependent on the activities occurring at the site, and is not directly related to the annual production rate (Table 2.2-1).

Table 2.2-1: Solid Waste, McArthur River Operation, 2009 to 2014

Parameter Units 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Production million kg U 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.0

Non-Hazardous Waste Landfilled kg 467,240 482,205 521,777 510,311 795,433 664,240

Non-Hazardous Waste Diverted from Landfill

kg 40,626 45,159 144,457 88,804 81,733 76,998

Low Level Radioactive Waste Generated

kg 2,639,102 2,035,020 1,898,640 1,960,729 1,652,084 1,765,758

Total Quantity of Solid Waste Generated

kg 3,146,968 2,562,384 2,564,874 2,559,844 2,529,250 2,506,996

2.2.6.2 Wastewater

There are two types of wastewater at the McArthur River operation: contaminated water and domestic wastewater (sewage). All waters that become contaminated at the McArthur River operation are treated through the mine water treatment process prior to being discharged to the environment. Routine mine water treatment at the McArthur River operation consists of primary and secondary water treatment plant processes. The mine water treatment plant uses a chemical treatment process whereby reagents are added to precipitate metals and radionuclides as well as to adjust pH, followed by solids removal through clarification and filtration. Under routine conditions, treated water is stored in



monitoring ponds until water quality has been confirmed, and is then discharged into a muskeg receiving area in the Read Creek drainage system. The contingency water treatment system provides additional mine water treatment capacity in the case of a non-routine mine water inflow event. Treated water from the contingency water treatment system would also be stored in monitoring ponds until quality was confirmed, and then discharged into the environment.

Sewage generated from surface facilities is collected and pumped to a sewage lagoon. The sewage lagoon facility involves the treatment of sewage in a facultative lagoon system. Sewage generated underground is incorporated into the ore process and forms only a small fraction of the overall ore slurry moved on a daily basis underground.

2.2.6.3 Low-Grade Mineralization

Low-grade mineralization is defined as having a U3O8 content between 0.03% and 2%, and is managed at the McArthur River operation in accordance with existing management systems to ensure that it does not impact upon the environment. The low-grade mineralization generated underground is either processed in the grinding circuit or skipped to surface and stockpiled on engineered lined storage pads. Runoff and precipitation from these pads is collected and directed to the water treatment plant. The low-grade mineralization is regularly shipped to the Key Lake operation in standard, tarped highway haul trucks for use as blending material in the processing of high-grade McArthur River ore slurry. Recent efforts to reduce the amount of low-grade mineralization generated have resulted in a significant reduction in the amounts of this material shipped to the Key Lake operation since 2011 (Table 2.2-3).

2.2.6.4 Waste Rock

Potentially acid-generating (PAG) waste rock is stored on engineered lined surface pads and is then crushed, screened and separated into coarse aggregate and fines. Coarse aggregate is temporarily stored on an engineered lined surface pad then transported to the batch plant and used as concrete aggregate. PAG fines are moved back to the engineered lined pads, and then transferred to temporary storage near the batch plant and used as a substitute for sand in concrete production. Prior to 2010, PAG waste rock was shipped to the Key Lake operation for disposal in the Deilmann Tailings Management Facility.

Clean waste rock is stored in unlined stockpiles and used as required for surface construction activities, in accordance with approved processes.

2.2.6.5 Hazardous Substances

At the McArthur River operation, hazardous substances are consumed and/or produced while carrying out licensed activities. Examples of hazardous substances at the McArthur River operation include chemicals and reagents, gasoline, used batteries, and waste oil. The McArthur River operation has several approved storage facilities for hazardous substances including used oil and hazardous waste materials. These materials are temporarily stored before being managed off site by licensed external waste service



providers. Quantities of hazardous waste removed from the McArthur River operation are variable and not correlated to the total annual production rate (Table 2.2-2).

Table 2.2-2: Quantity of Hazardous Waste, McArthur River Operation, 2009 to 2014

Parameter Units 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Production million kg U 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.0

Hazardous Waste Generated Kg 73,832 71,672 67,567 76,159 69,579 24,748

2.2.7 Access and Transportation

Access to the McArthur River operation is achieved by private airstrip or a controlled road from the Key Lake operation. The private airstrip is accessed by commercial airplanes that currently transport over 500 employees and contractors to and from the McArthur River operation on a weekly basis. The controlled road is an extension of Highway No. 914 that occurs at the terminus of provincial Highway No. 914, and is approximately 80 km in length. Access to this road is currently controlled by a gate at the Key Lake operation, which is staffed by the Key Lake operation security department.

Goods and materials that are transported to and from the McArthur River operation to support licensed activities include ore slurry, low grade mineralization, contaminated waste, bulk goods and freight. It is important to highlight that these transportation activities are routinely performed at the McArthur River operation and the associated risks are well understood and controlled.

Uranium ore slurry is transported in specially designed containers from the McArthur River operation to the Key Lake operation for off-loading and subsequent milling. These ore slurry containers are constructed and approved as an Industrial Package Type 2 (Type IP-2) in accordance with the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations. Low-grade mineralization, PAG waste rock, and contaminated solid waste is also shipped to the Key Lake operation for disposal. At the Key Lake operation, contaminated solid waste is disposed of in the Above Ground Tailings Management Facility (AGTMF); low grade mineralization is stored in approved designated locations prior to use in the mill. This material is loaded into highway haul trucks covered with tarps to prevent dust and loose rock from escaping during transport. Return trips are either empty, or are used to transport sand for the batch plant.

Shipment of bulk goods, such as gasoline and cement, is initiated on an as needed basis by the McArthur River operation. Bulk goods are transported to the McArthur River operation by contracted carriers in appropriate transportation equipment that meets the requirements of all applicable federal and provincial legislation. Freight can include all manner of goods and materials that are shipped from Cameco’s Transit Warehouse in Saskatoon.

Table 2.2-3 presents a summary of the number of shipments of uranium ore slurry, low grade mineralization, PAG waste rock, contaminated solid waste, bulk commodities and



freight on Highway 914 from McArthur River operation to Key Lake operation each year (2007 to 2014). Each of the shipments presented requires travel to and from the McArthur River operation. The data show that the total annual traffic associated with activities at the McArthur River operation on both the haul road from the McArthur River operation to Key Lake operation, and on Highway 914 south of the Key Lake operation is variable and unrelated to the annual production rate. For example, the total annual traffic between the McArthur River and Key Lake operations has ranged from a high of approximately 59 vehicles per day in 2010, to a low of approximately 46 vehicles per day in 2014, when the annual production at the McArthur River operation was 8.0 M kg U.

The absence of a relationship between the annual production rate and total annual traffic is due to the dependence of shipment rates for ore slurry and other materials on several factors including: ore grade; mine development activities; inventory levels at both McArthur River and Key Lake; and the success of various ongoing waste and traffic reduction initiatives occurring at the mine site. Data from the last several years illustrate that the number of vehicles per day on Highway 914 between McArthur River and Key Lake operation, and Highway 914 south of the Key Lake operation has remained within historical ranges despite increasing annual production rates.


McArthur River operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 2

Table 2.2-3: Summary of Historical Traffic Related to the McArthur River Operation, 2007 to 2014 Parameter Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Production Million kilograms U 7.2 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.0

Total Production Million pounds U3O8 18.7 17.5 18.5 19.3 19.7 19.8 20.3 20.9

Ore Slurry Shipments to Key Lake operation Number of Shipments Per Year 3,315 3,073 4,054 4,438 4,330 4,642 4,650 4,580

Low Grade Mineralization Shipments to Key Lake operation

Number of Shipments Per Year 4,856 5,203 4,930 4,292 3,242 3,904 3,278 1,988

Potentially Acid Generating Waste Rock Shipments to Key Lake operation

Number of Shipments Per Year 82 137 24 0 0 0 0 0

Contaminated Waste/ Other Shipments to Key Lake operation


Bulk Commodity Shipments to McArthur River operation


Freight Shipments to McArthur River operation


Total Number of Shipments Number of Shipments Per Year 9,439 9,833 10,600 10,230 9,358 10,455 9,585 8,331

Traffic on Highway 914 Between McArthur River and Key Lake operations Vehicles Per Year 18,878 19,666 21,200 20,460 18,716 20,910 19,170 16,662

Traffic on Highway 914 Between McArthur River and Key Lake operations Vehicles Per Day 52 54 58 56 51 57 53 46

Traffic on Highway 914 South of Key Lake operation Vehicles Per Year 1,858 2,242 2,384 2,250 2,768 2,938 2,448 2,636

Traffic on Highway 914 South of Key Lake operation Vehicles Per Day 5 6 7 6 8 8 7 7



2.2.8 Decommissioning and Reclamation

The current McArthur River operation Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (PDP) and Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate (PDCE) were last approved in 2013 by the applicable regulatory agencies. The PDP and PDCE are required to be updated at a maximum on a five-year cycle. Currently, the McArthur River operation maintains a financial assurance, in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit, in the amount of $48.4 million for decommissioning should Cameco not be able to provide for these expenses.

As the McArthur River operation is relatively new and has a small surface developed area, the majority of reclamation to date has consisted of area revegetation and improvement of erosion control. McArthur River operation is committed to progressive reclamation throughout the life of the mine and updates to operational one and five year decommissioning and reclamation plans are conducted on an annual basis and submitted to applicable regulatory agencies.

2.2.9 Emergency Response

The McArthur River operation identifies the potential for accidents and other emergency situations and develops, maintains and tests emergency procedures on a regular basis. The McArthur River operation’s emergency preparedness and response program identifies specific potential accidents or emergency situations that may occur, and emergency response procedures are reviewed and tested regularly for these situations.

2.3 Proposed Change in a Development: Increase in Annual Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8)

The proposal to increase nominal annual production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) involves currently approved activities, inputs and outputs at the McArthur River operation. No changes to the existing facility, or its associated inputs and outputs, as described in Section 2.2, are required to facilitate the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit.

Production capacity at the McArthur River operation is variable and dependent on factors such as ore grade and thickness, raise sequencing, and the timing of drifts and fills. For example, the life of mine plan predicts that the average annual shipping grade of the uranium ore from the McArthur River deposit will vary during mine operation, depending on the ore zone being mined. Variation in ore grade, the spatial extent of the underground mine and the number of active mining zones influence the activities required to mine and process uranium ore. These activities are routinely performed at the McArthur River operation and the associated risks are well understood and controlled.

The McArthur River operation has been safely and reliably mining uranium ore for 15 years, and has steadily increased annual production since 2010 (Table 2.3-1). During this time period, the quarterly production rate has met or exceeded 2.4 M kg U (i.e., 25% of 9.6 M kg U) five times (Table 2.3-2). Also during this time period, McArthur River



operation has demonstrated strong and improving performance in relation to protection of the environment as well as the health, safety and security of the public and workers. Section 4 of this proposal provides a more detailed summary of environmental and safety performance over the period 2010 to 2014, during which time the annual production rate has steadily increased.

As such, the existing programs, criteria, and controls outlined above have proven to be sufficient in order to maintain the successful operating performance of the McArthur River operation at a production rate of up to 9.6 M kg U annually.

Table 2.3-1: Annual Production at the McArthur River operation, 2007 to 2014

Year U Produced (M kg)

U3O8 Produced (M lbs)

2007 7.2 18.7 2008 6.7 17.5 2009 7.1 18.6 2010 7.4 19.4 2011 7.6 19.8 2012 7.6 19.8 2013 7.8 20.3 2014 8.0 20.9

Table 2.3-2: Production Statistics in Quarters Over 2.4 M kg U

Year Quarter U Produced (kg) 2007 4 2,407,325 2009 4 2,459,562 2011 3 2,548,285 2013 1 2,519,671 2013 3 2,648,494


SECTION 3.0

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ENGAGING FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS, AND OTHER INTERESTED

PARTIES

PUB

LIC

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ION

: E

NG

AG

ING

FIR

ST

NA

TIO

NS,

MÉ

TIS

, AN

D O

TH

ER

INT

ER

EST

ED

PA

RT

IES


3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ENGAGING FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

Public engagement is a reflection of Cameco’s overall corporate responsibility. For many years, Cameco has conducted a range of ongoing public engagement activities designed to keep northern Saskatchewan residents and other informed about our activities.

Cameco has and continues to engage with the people of northern Saskatchewan to listen to and address their issues and concerns, while working to ensure that local communities benefit from the value the company places on economic development and social responsibility.

3.1 McArthur River Engagement

The McArthur River operation has a well-defined public information program (PIP) that is intended to assist the operation in ensuring that environmental, health and safety issues that may arise as a result of its operations are effectively communicated, in a manner that complies with established regulations. This program details the specific communities that are considered target engagement audiences for the operation and describes the communication tools that are used to support the face-to face engagement that is core to keeping these audiences in northern Saskatchewan up to date.

More recently, Cameco has developed and posted a public disclosure protocol on Cameco’s northern Saskatchewan website. This protocol serves as an overall public guideline to the commitments Cameco has made to inform the public and target audiences of activities and any changes at our operations, including McArthur River.

As a result of Cameco’s extensive experience in community engagement and communications, members of the public, including First Nation and Metis people in northern Saskatchewan, are well position to have informed discussions regarding Cameco’s projects and activities. Cameco will continue to build strong relationships in the north through its PIP and its commitments in maintaining open channels of communication with northern Saskatchewan communities.

3.2 Engagement on Proposed Increase in the Nominal Annual Production Limit Increase to 9.6 M kg U (25M lbs U3O8)

This section outlines the details of the PIP that Cameco has developed and continues to implement for its northern Saskatchewan operations. In addition, discussion is included on the public engagement undertaken by Cameco on the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U at the McArthur River operation. Appended to this section are letters of support from Pinehouse and English River First Nation (EFRN) for the proposal to increase the nominal annual production capacity at the McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U (Appendix 3B).

For the McArthur River Application, Cameco developed an engagement plan with the aim of distributing project-related information broadly throughout northern Saskatchewan and to provide focused engagement with target audiences in an effort to discuss the



project and address concerns raised. As part of the engagement process, Cameco strives to involve community interest groups from target First Nation, Metis communities or municipalities in addition to the political leaders.

In determining which First Nation, Metis of municipal communities should be engaged for McArthur River, Cameco identified communities that could be affected by looking at a range of possible effects, such as those to: trapping, hunting, and fishing activities; food and medicine gathering activities; sacred cultural sites; commercial fishing activities; commercial trapping activities, outfitting, tourism or lodge related interests; and effects from increased access.

Since 2012, Cameco has signed collaboration agreements (CA) with English River First Nation (ERFN) and Pinehouse, those communities identified as target audiences for McArthur River. The CAs reaffirms and formalizes our long-standing relationship with these communities. In the CAs, the terms of engagement are defined, which established subcommittees that are expected to play a role in educating the community and answering any concerns members might have about Cameco’s uranium mining and milling operations.

Cameco meets regularly with the ERFN Joint Implementation Engagement and Environment Subcommittee (JIEES) and the Pinehouse Joint Implementation Engagement Subcommittee (JIES) to exchange information and to plan for future activities. A main purpose of these meetings is to provide updates and to help ensure a clear understanding of Cameco’s operations, particularly McArthur River operation.

Cameco met with representatives from Pinehouse JIES, youth from Pinehouse, and ERFN JIEES in December 2014 to present the application to increase production to 25 M lbs U3O8, focusing on the following key messages:

• The proposed increase can be achieved with the existing facilities, activities and management systems in place at the McArthur River operation; and

• The existing management systems in place at McArthur River will ensure that the proposed change is implemented, and maintains Cameco’s commitment to worker health, safety and a clean environment.

The presentation gave the representatives an opportunity to discuss the application, raise concerns and for those concerns to be addressed by Cameco. Appendix 3A provides a copy of the presentation, and a summary of the comments raised and responses from Cameco. Subsequent to the presentation, both Pinehouse and ERFN provided letters of support for the proposal to increase the nominal annual production limit at the McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U (Appendix 3B).

In addition to focused engagement, Cameco engages northern Saskatchewan residents broadly through a variety of methods. The communication tools listed below (as a minimum) have been and continue to be incorporated into Cameco’s ongoing engagement activities:

• Distributing project fact sheets and frequently asked questions documents



• Disseminating general project information through radio, magazine advertising and feature stories, newsletters and website and newspaper communications

• Holding project-specific workshops in northern communities • Presenting to Northern Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Committee meetings/

sub-committee meetings and the Athabasca Working Group • The fall Cameco Northern Tour • Cameco satellite offices which provide support and increased accessibility for

northerners, and which are based in applicable northern communities • Providing Dene and Cree translations • Incorporating visual aids – animation video; and • Use social media to outline upcoming community events.

3.3 Outcomes and Next Steps

The PIP for the McArthur River operation has been designed to ensure opportunities for interested parties to provide feedback and/or to identify relevant concerns in relation to the McArthur River operation; and to ensure that relevant feedback and/or concerns are considered and addressed. The engagement plan specific to the proposal to increase the nominal annual production capacity at the McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U has ensured that applicable questions and concerns were elicited from members of interested parties, and those questions and concerns were acknowledged and addressed by Cameco.

In addition, the subcommittees established through the CAs have provided an opportunity for more extensive, versatile, and conversational engagement opportunities with First Nation, Métis, municipalities, and other parties that have been identified as potentially interested.

On the specific issue of Crown consultation and accommodation obligations in the First Nations and Métis context, Cameco has not observed anything in the public engagement process to date that would indicate that the proposal will in any way create any novel adverse impacts to the exercise of Aboriginal or Treaty rights, and so should not trigger any applicable Crown consultation or accommodation obligations.

Cameco will continue to engage northerners on the McArthur River operation through the PIP and CA processes. Cameco will continue to build and maintain strong relationships in the north through its public participation efforts and is committed to maintaining open channels of communication.


APPENDIX 3A

APP

EN

DIX

3A

Cameco Corporation

cameco.com

December 15, 2014

Trent Hamilton

McArthur River Operation2014 site update

Senior Coordinator, Compliance and Licensing

McArthur River operational update

2

● No Lost Time Injuries (LTIs) in 2014

● 820 days worked since last LTI

● One spill

● Environmental highlight:

● Shaft No. 3 water being collected for industrial uses


● McArthur River continues to operate safely for people and the environment

● Continued strong environmental performance in 2014

● Maintained high quality of effluent with an increase in annual production to 8.1 million kg uranium

3


4

● Approval received in April 2014 to increase annual production

● Increase from 7.2 to 8.1 million kg of uranium

● Demonstrated in 2014 that McArthur River can maintain high effluent quality with increased production rates

● Looking to increase production to 9.6 million kg uranium in the future

● Provide operational flexibility


5

● Significant improvements in effluent quality observed while production increased

● Including molybdenum, selenium and uranium


6

● Significant improvements in effluent quality observed while production increased

● Including molybdenum, selenium and uranium

Fox Lake road decommissioning

7

● McArthur River operation plans to decommission in the future following discussions with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment and local communities

● Will maintain some of the culverts and bridges

● The decommissioning plan may be modified based on community feedback

● Engagement will continue in 2015

Questions

cameco.com

Summary of Comments and Responses, Public Engagement on Increase in Nominal Annual Production Limit at McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8), December 2014

Meeting Question/Comment Response

Joint Implementation Engagement Sub-committee meeting in Saskatoon, December 8, 2014

When are you looking to increase [production] to 9.6?

We are looking to implement that in the next couple of months.

Are you ever going to be able to produce enough to use two mills?

Right now, from a licensing perspective, we can’t ship ore to McLean Lake. Transportation would need to be approved and McLean Lake would have to do things on their end before they could receive our ore.

Maybe by the end of 2015? It depends on how long the licensing takes.

Would the regulator be looking for community input prior to approval?

Because of the partnership between Pinehouse and Cameco, any concerns you have, we have a process for you to bring up in our meetings so that we can help to address those issues.

If you increase production, where would safety fit within discussion? Would there be a limit?

From a safety and environmental perspective, we found that the rate of production does not impact performance. Historically, within the 2010-2014 time range, we looked at periods of time where we produced at a high rate and noticed that the environmental and safety aspect remained unchanged. Increasing production doesn’t mean less safety or a greater environmental impact.

What kind of environmental monitoring takes place between McArthur River and Key Lake?

The Haul Road surveys for gamma radiation. Transportation is regulated through the Transportation of Dangerous Goods.

Since McArthur River produces waste that is transported to Key Lake, who assumes responsibility of that waste?

We have a key relationship with Key Lake as they take our product and some of our waste.

Meeting Question/Comment Response

Joint Implementation Engagement and Environment Sub-Committee Meeting in English River First Nation and Saskatoon, December 15, 2014

Does that increase the amount of trips to the mill

Yes, we did a bit, but not by very much.

Do you think you can do it? Yes, but will take time and we won’t be there in the next few years. If planned out correctly, we can look at moving that up.

Who’s monitoring that? There are a lot of people, people on site, the ministry of Environment, the CNSC, Environment Canada.

Quality increases the more uranium you take out?

What we’re trying to show is that we can safely increase production. People might think we’ll have lower quality effluent or will hurt the environment more, but what we’ve seen is the opposite. We have strong controls, water treatment plant, strong operators, and have been monitoring.

APPENDIX 3B

APP

EN

DIX

3B

SECTION 4.0

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

DE

SCR

IPT

ION

OF

TH

E E

XIS

TIN

G

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

McArthur River operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 4

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The existing environment in which the McArthur River operation operates is well understood due to the abundance of data that have been collected since the establishment of pre-operational baseline conditions in the late 1980s. Monitoring data is collected at the McArthur River operation through the ongoing environmental monitoring program (EMP), environmental effects monitoring (EEM) program, and special investigations. Status of the environment (SOE) reports are submitted every five years to regulatory agencies, and summarize the results of environmental monitoring and special investigation data in comparison to predictions made in the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the McArthur River Project submitted in 1995 and the 1996 addendum (Cameco 1995, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1995 EIS and the 1996 Addendum), as well as the 2005 ecological risk assessment (ERA) that focused on the Read Creek drainage system (Ecometrix 2005; hereinafter referred to as the 2005 ERA).

The summary presented herein presents operating data from 2010 to 2014 to demonstrate that environmental performance at the McArthur River operation remained within previously predicted and assessed values regardless of the annual production rates. This summary demonstrates substantial improvement in loadings of key constituents of potential concern (COPCs) in treated water over this period. It is important to note that as shown in Section 2.3, the annual production rate has steadily increased over this same time period.

4.1 Atmospheric Environment

Atmospheric emissions from current activities at the McArthur River operation include emissions of radon and/or dust and the release of combustion gases during the McArthur River operation of vehicles and equipment, and the heating of work spaces. In the 1995 EIS, it was predicted that atmospheric emissions from the McArthur River operation would only have a negligible effect on local air quality and no effect on regional air quality.

The air quality monitoring conducted at routine sampling locations in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation demonstrates that there are no contributions of mining activity to changes in air quality beyond the surface lease boundary.

Overall, a review of high-volume air composite sample results and radon track-etch sample results from 2010 to 2014 indicated that COPCs have remained within historical ranges and within the predictions outlined in the 1995 EIS. A summary of site hi-volume and track-etch monitoring data is provided in Appendix 4A.

Noise sources and levels at the McArthur River operation are localized and typical of industrial sites.

4.2 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Environment

The McArthur River operation is located within the Athabasca Plains Region of the Canadian Shield Physiographic Province, which is developed on flat lying sandstones and



conglomerates of the Helikian Athabasca Group, and dominantly displays characteristics related to the erosion of this material through historical glaciations. The topography in the region is dominated by drumlinized morainal features intermixed with hummocky morainal plains and adjacent lowlands. The overburden deposits in the immediate vicinity of the McArthur River operation range in thickness from 0 m in bedrock outcrop areas to more than 50 m beneath the drumlins.

The McArthur River operation has conducted continuous monitoring of shallow groundwater in a series of wells in both the overburden and sandstone. Two hydrostratigraphic units have been identified in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation: the upper glacial drift and lower sandstone. Due to dewatering activities around the shafts on site, the upper glacial drift is mainly unsaturated in the direct vicinity of operations with localized perched aquifers present. These perched water tables are likely present during spring snowmelt and at times of high rainfall. The lower sandstone aquifer has variable groundwater depths, from 520 metres above sea level (masl) to 530 masl, with a localized cone of depression present due to shaft dewatering.

4.3 Aquatic Environment

The McArthur River operation is located in the Waterfound River drainage area, which is a tributary of the Fond-du-Lac River of the Athabasca River Basin. Water from the local Read Creek drainage ultimately flows into Lake Athabasca via the Whitford River, Waterbury Lake, Waterfound River and Fond-du-Lac River.

4.3.1 Treated Water

Flows in the Read Creek drainage system since the discharge of treated water began continue to be within the range of natural variation, indicating no effect of the McArthur River operation on surface hydrology in the Read Creek drainage system. Treated water and clean Shaft No. 3 groundwater enter Read Creek directly via the conveyance channel. The quality of the treated water discharged from the mine complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and effects on water quality and sediment are consistent with or better than predictions.

The 2005 ERA assessed the potential ecological risks associated with the release of treated water from the site. Overall, the potential ecological risks associated with the treated water were found to be minor and confined to the near field receiving environment. The key constituents of potential concern (COPC) in the treated water that were identified for further evaluation or control were molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se) and U.

Cameco thereafter initiated a process to identify and implement improvements to the treated water concentrations for these three COPCs following the McArthur River Environmental Management System (EMS). Cameco began upgrading the minewater treatment circuit in 2005 and continued with progressive modifications to further improve performance that were completed in 2011.



More specifically, Cameco reconfigured the minewater treatment circuit in 2005 in order to more effectively remove Mo and Se from the treated water, consistent with measures implemented at other Cameco operations in northern Saskatchewan. The primary water treatment plant (WTP) was converted to a low pH treatment circuit to facilitate removal of Mo and Se and placed before the high pH secondary WTP.

In 2009 and 2010, Cameco made improvements to the water distribution system underground to segregate grinding water with a high Mo concentration from the remaining minewater in order to improve Mo removal efficiencies. The thickener isolation was commissioned in August 2010 with a few additional changes made later in the year. Since that time, the process department has continued to focus on operational efficiency and optimization of the water treatment process.

These changes have since resulted in substantial reductions in the concentrations of Mo, Se and U in the treated water and total loadings to the environment. Specifically, concentrations of Mo and Se in the final discharge have decreased since 2005 by approximately 96% and 69% respectively. During this time period, the U concentration in the final discharge has also decreased by over 86%. Substantial reductions in mass loadings of Mo, Se and U have been observed as well, resulting in decreases of 95%, 63% and 84% respectively.

The figures presented below detail the improving quality of the discharged treated water (Station 2.1) for the identified key COPCs - Mo, Se and U - from 2004 to 2014 (Figures 4.3-1 to 4.3-3). These figures clearly illustrate that the McArthur River operation continuous improvement initiatives have resulted in a significant reduction in Mo, Se and U concentrations and total loadings to the environment while production rates increased.



Figure 4.3-1: Treated Water Mean Molybdenum Concentrations and Total Loadings

Figure 4.3-2: Treated Water Mean Selenium Concentrations and Total Loadings

Figure 4.3-3: Treated Water Mean Uranium Concentrations and Total Loadings

Cameco conducted a technical assessment in 2004 (Cameco, 2004) which determined that the volume of treated water released at the McArthur River operation was primarily a



function of dewatering activities and that there was no statistically significant relationship between water quantity and production rate. The statistical analysis indicated that McArthur River minewater treated water concentrations and volumes were not statistically different for high and low production months, and that an increased production rate would not result in a change in treated water quality or quantity.

These conclusions are further supported by a review of site operating data. Figures 4.3-1 to 4.3-3 presented above show a reduction in concentrations for the key COPCs associated with the operation despite increasing production rates over the last several years. Figure 4.3-4 below, shows treated water volumes from 2004 to 2014. Throughout the period displayed in the figure, total discharge volumes have remained within historically observed values. However, the April 2003 and November 2008 water inflow events impacted the treated water discharge rates in 2003 to 2004 and in 2009, until each of the inflows were fully mitigated.

Figure 4.3-4: Treated Water Discharge Volumes and Uranium Production

The data above demonstrate strong and improving controls over a period of increasing production.

Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 are presented below to provide a comparison of 2010 to 2014 mean concentrations and total loadings of the key COPCs to previously assessed values. These tables show that since increasing production rates began in 2010, observed treated water concentrations and loadings of key COPCs have remained below levels modelled in the 2005 ERA and therefore within the boundaries of those environmental impacts previously reviewed and approved at the McArthur River operation. Additionally, the observed treated water concentrations of key COPCs have remained below levels modelled in the 1996 Addendum.

6000000

6500000

7000000

7500000

8000000

8500000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

U Produced (kg) Effluent Discharged (m3/hr)


McArthur River operation A Proposal to Increase Nominal Annual Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) Section 4 Table 4.3-1: Station 2.1 Average Treated Water Concentrations of Key COPCs, and Total

Flow Volumes at Station 2.1 compared to Previously Assessed Values

Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 ERA

Expected

2005 ERA

Upper Bound

Uranium (µg/L) 18.20 14.70 14.10 10.70 9.70 48 202

Molybdenum (mg/L) 0.911 0.338 0.225 0.188 0.212 1.00 2.7

Selenium (mg/L) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.007

Total Flow (m3) 1,870,816 2,054,816 2,327,580 2,273,613 2,265,810 3,328,800 3,775,560

Data sourced from the annual and quarterly reports. 2005 ERA Expected – Average of the measured monthly mean treated water concentrations 2005 ERA Upper Bound – Average concentration plus two standard deviations (representing the 95th percentile of observed monthly average concentrations)

Table 4.3-2: Station 2.1 and 2.7 Total Key COPCs Loadings at Station 2.1 and Station 2.7

compared to Previously Assessed Values

Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 ERA Expected

2005 ERA

Upper Bound

Uranium (kg) 34.50 30.37 32.97 24.76 23.08 160.5 763.5

Molybdenum (kg) 1691.98 678.32 526.39 429.10 414.88 3,330.2 10,195.8

Selenium (kg) 4.31 4.89 3.86 3.37 4.17 10.7 28.2

Total Flow (m3)

2,380,547 2,488,544 2,648,792 2,632,450 2,583,588 4,029,600 4,651,560

Loadings and flows include both Station 2.1(Treatment Plant) and 2.7 (Shaft No. 3)

Data sourced from the annual and quarterly reports 2005 ERA Expected – Average of the measured monthly mean treated water concentrations 2005 ERA Upper Bound – Average concentration plus two standard deviations (representing the 95th percentile of observed monthly average concentrations)

Tables with mean concentrations and total loadings for a number of additional parameters are presented in Appendix 4A. The mean annual concentrations and total loadings for these additional parameters provide even further support for this application in that the additional parameters remained within the environmental impacts previously assessed and approved at the McArthur River operation.

As outlined previously, ore production rates have varied year to year and there have been five quarters where production rates were on track to generate more than 9.6 M kg of U in a single year. During these quarters, the average and range of treated water quality data also remained below previously assessed values, as shown in Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4. This



evidence support the conclusion that due to various factors, including the strong management systems in place, treated water quality remains independent of production rate.

Table 4.3-3: Production Statistics and Treated Water Discharge Volumes and Concentrations of U, Mo and Se at Station 2.1 in Quarters with Production

over 2.4 M kg U

Year Quarter U Produced (kg)

Treated Water Discharged

(m3)

U (µg/L)

Mo (mg/L)

Se (mg/L)

2007 4 2,407,325 598,437 48.1 (1) 0.004 2009 4 2,459,562 558,871 14.7 (1) 0.003 2011 3 2,548,285 546,328 9.9 0.286 0.003 2013 1 2,519,671 599,738 12.4 0.205 0.001 2013 3 2,648,494 532,720 7.0 0.173 0.002

12007 and 2009 Mo treated water data excluded as the WTP was undergoing upgrades

Table 4.3-4: Mean COPC Concentrations in Quarters with Production over 2.4 M kg U vs. Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) Predictions

Parameter Quarterly Average Concentration

2005 ERA Expected

2005 ERA Upper Bound

Uranium (µg/L) 18.4 48 202 Molybdenum (mg/L) 0.221 1 2.7 Selenium (mg/L) 0.003 0.003 0.007

2005 ERA Expected – Average of the measured monthly mean treated water concentrations 2005 ERA Upper bound – Average concentration plus two standard deviations (representing the 95th percentile of observed monthly average concentrations)

4.3.2 Downstream Environment

The McArthur River operation continually monitors the status of the downstream receiving environment through a combination of routine monitoring activity and biological studies. Biological studies are conducted every three years and have shown that the environmental impacts associated with the McArthur River operation remain within the bounds of those previously assessed and approved.

In the 1995 EIS, it was predicted that the hydrology of the Read Creek drainage system would be influenced to a minor degree immediately downstream of the treated water discharge point. Since the discharge of treated water began, the flow in Read Creek has continued to be within the range of natural variation. No pattern has emerged indicating that there is an effect of the McArthur River operation on surface hydrology in the Read Creek drainage system. This is consistent with the determination in the 2005 ERA that concluded that the 1995 EIS over-predicted the potential physical effects of the treated water release on the Read Creek drainage system (EcoMetrix 2005).

In terms of water quality, the 1995 EIS predicted that there would be a measureable impact on the immediate receiving environment as a result of the volume and quality of



the water being released. Subsequent to the 1995 EIS, the 2005 ERA identified potential risks to the near-field aquatic environment as a result of exposure to Mo, Se, and U in treated water discharged from Operation over the life of the McArthur River operation. Potential effects were predicted to be confined to the near-field environment and not result in population effects. Currently, the quality of the discharged mine water is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements and measurements of downstream water and sediment quality are consistent with or better than predictions made in the 2005 ERA. The McArthur River operation has implemented continuous improvement initiatives to reduce the volume of water released to the Read Creek drainage system and the concentrations of Mo, Se and U in the treated water. Substantial reductions in mass loadings of Mo, Se and U have been observed resulting in a downward trend in concentrations of these COPCs in water since 2005, as explained in Section 4.3.2.1.

In the 1995 EIS, it was predicted that sediment concentrations of certain COPCs would likely affect benthic invertebrate communities in all exposure areas immediately downstream of the treated water discharge. However, the 2005 ERA concluded that there would be no risk to the benthic invertebrate communities in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation.

Monitoring results confirm the prediction in the 2005 ERA and indicate that the McArthur River operation is not having a measurable impact on the benthic invertebrate communities in the downstream environment.

The 1995 EIS predicted negligible changes in the composition of the fish community with the exception of the potential for cadmium and copper accumulation in fish tissue as a result of treated water discharge into the Read Creek drainage system. In the 2005 ERA, a potential risk related to Se accumulation in large-bodied fish tissue was identified in East Boomerang Lake and Unknown Lake. However, monitoring to date indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that fish health is at risk in the Read Creek drainage system.

This summary illustrates that despite increasing production rates, the strong environmental controls in place at the McArthur River operation have led to significant improvements in treated water quality and reductions in loadings to the receiving environment. As such, conditions in the downstream environment are not anticipated to change and will remain well within what has been previously assessed and approved. Additional discussion is provided in Appendix 4A.

4.4 Terrestrial Environment

The 1995 EIS predicted impacts to terrestrial habitat during construction and operation, including vegetation communities, within the proposed disturbance areas within the surface lease, but predicted that in the long term (i.e., post-decommissioning and reclamation) the effect would be negligible. The surface disturbance associated with the McArthur River operation is approximately 170 hectares, which represents approximately 12 percent of the surface lease area. Progressive reclamation is practiced by the McArthur River operation.



In terms of plant and wildlife species, the 1995 EIS predicted that surface disturbance of terrestrial habitat would have a negligible impact on rare and endangered plants, and that potential effects on economically important wildlife or rare or endangered wildlife species through habitat disruption or increased access leading to more hunting and trapping would be negligible. No surface disturbance has occurred in the areas where rare or uncommon plant species were historically identified, and access to the area is restricted to existing lease holders. There is no indication that there has been an increase in public access at large in relation to the development of the McArthur River operation.

Negligible effects on the health of soils or the concentrations of COPCs in terrestrial vegetation due to indirect or direct deposition of COPCs were predicted in the 1995 EIS. Monitoring results indicate that there is a localized mine-related effect due to dusting that is short term and limited in spatial extent. At all monitoring stations, the concentrations of COPCs in soil remain well below soil quality guideline levels. COPC concentrations in blueberry are shown to decrease with increasing distance from the mine site and return to baseline within the surface lease boundary.

The 1995 EIS predicted that wildlife exposure to COPCs through the terrestrial pathway would not pose a significant risk to terrestrial wildlife. However, in the 2005 ERA potential risk to species with aquatic linkages, such as muskrat, mink, mallard and scaup was identified. Special investigations were subsequently completed on muskrat and avian species. The results of the muskrat investigation indicated that the muskrats were in good to excellent body condition, and that the concentrations of all metals, including Mo and Se, in the tissues of the muskrat were low and not bioaccumulating. The avian study results also suggested that risks to birds using the treated water receiving environment at the McArthur River operation are low.

4.5 Worker Health and Safety

4.5.1 Conventional Health and Safety

The conventional safety aspects at the McArthur River operation are essentially the same as those encountered at any other mining operation. These include such things as the use of heavy mobile equipment, other industrial and mining equipment and machinery, chemicals, exhaust and other emissions. Despite the occupational hazards present, through effective safety programs at each site, the corporate wide occupational health and safety performance has been consistently better than the industry average. In support of the McArthur River operation’s effort to foster and promote a strong safety culture among all employees and contractors, the McArthur River operation has developed a formalized Safety and Health Management Program. This program is derived from Cameco’s corporate Safety and Health Management Program. This program provides a formal process for systematically identifying, controlling, and monitoring safety and health hazards and continually providing opportunity for improving safety performance.

As a result of this program, McArthur River has demonstrated a strong safety record, with lost time incident (LTI) frequency and severity below the industry average in Saskatchewan over the past three years. The McArthur River operation also tracks hours and injuries of all contractors on site and has blended these statistics with Cameco’s



reporting for employees. Table 4.5-1 presents injury frequency and severity statistics over the last five years. As can be seen in Table 4.5-1, safety performance has remained strong and improved over the period.

Table 4.5-1: McArthur River Injury Severity and Frequency 2010- 2014

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total hours 1 1,670,360 1,931,077 2,034,248 1,828,109 1,781,032 Number of lost-time

1 3 2 0 0

Frequency (lost time injuries per 100 employees)

0.12 0.31 0.20 0 0

Frequency – Sask. mining industry (lost time injuries per 100 employees)

0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 (2)

Severity (days lost per 100 employees) 45.1 14.3 8.0 0 14.6

Severity – Sask. mining industry (days lost per 100 employees)

72.0 75.4 64.2 10.0 (2)

1Cameco employee and contractor hours combined 2Saskatchewan mining industry statistics are not available at this time

4.5.1 Radiation Protection Radiological exposure is managed through an extensive radiological monitoring and reporting program. Exposures are currently well within regulatory limits. In 2013, the 14th year of production at McArthur River, doses remained low with the average annual effective dose decreasing 8.2% from the previous year to 0.89 millisieverts (mSv). Radiological exposure monitoring at site indicates that dose prediction, prevention and control are effective at the McArthur River operation and that doses continue to be ALARA.

4.6 Socio-economic Environment

In the 1995 EIS, the socio-economic impacts for employment, training, economic benefits, and business opportunities were seen as being positive. Cameco continuously makes efforts to maximize the education and training opportunities of Residents of Saskatchewan’s North (RSNs) to prepare them for work in mining and other related employment opportunities in the north. This long term commitment to northern communities has resulted in increasing levels of skills, employment and business participation in the mining sector and in other economic activity in the north. In 1991, 39% of Cameco’s Saskatchewan mining operations were staffed by northern residents. Today, more than 50% of the permanent workforce is made up of RSNs. Of these, more than 41% are self-identified as Aboriginal. Cameco is the leading industrial employers of Aboriginal people in Canada today. As of December 31, 2014, the McArthur River



operation directly employs 488 people (not including long-term contractors). Of the 488 employees, 50.4% are RSNs, and 42.4% are self-identified as Aboriginal.

In addition to employment and training initiatives, Cameco is committed to helping develop local business in northern communities of Saskatchewan. In particular, Cameco has a program that gives preference to northern suppliers while maintaining high standards and fair, competitive pricing. The 1995 EIS showed that in 1994, 48 northern suppliers (including 12 Aboriginal suppliers) received $27,861,814 worth of business for supplies and services. Since 2008, Cameco has procured more than $2.3 billion from northern owned businesses, for services at our mine sites in northern Saskatchewan.

Cameco has engaged with the communities in northern Saskatchewan as a part of their overall community engagement process that has led it to collaborate with the priority recruitment communities for each operation. This collaboration has provided assistance with education and training, employment, business opportunities for northern businesses and funding assistance for community based projects. This type of assistance will continue throughout the life of the McArthur River operation.

Community infrastructure has benefited through Cameco’s contribution to communities, which, over the years have supported the development of things such as helping the village of Pinehouse with completing their arena project, building an airport shelter for passengers, providing support for their community beautification project and providing a track for the community Special Olympics. In Patuanak, this has included building an airport shelter for passengers and sponsorship to a Dene lands historical study, Treaty 10 celebrations and Indian Residential School gathering.

Land and resource users in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation are generally traditional and domestic resource users and commercial and recreational users. Cameco has used the 1999 Impact Management Agreement (IMA) from the Athabasca Basin as a model for how land and resource users are assisted or compensated when company activities have the potential to overlap with activities on the land and water. The recent collaboration agreements with Pinehouse and English River First Nation are an example of this continued evolution. Cameco recognizes that traditional land use information is particularly relevant to consider where activities affect First Nations and Métis land use. Working with northern stakeholders, Cameco has and continues to consider land use information about its operations in northern Saskatchewan.

The McArthur River operation is located in an area traditionally used by Aboriginal people, which, over the last few centuries, included the Dene, Cree, and Métis-Cree of northern Saskatchewan. For the First Nations and Métis in northern Saskatchewan, traditional resource use has been a defining feature of their culture and identity. Residents of the communities of English River First Nation (ERFN)/Patuanak and the village of Pinehouse still pursue activities such as hunting, fishing, and trapping to supplement their food supplies and incomes. The primary means of accessing the land and resources in and around the McArthur River operation is Highway 914 and the McArthur River haul road. During the environmental review process for the 1995 EIS, agreement was reached that the haul road between McArthur River and Key Lake operation would be a private mining road, with access only available through the Key Lake operation main gate. As



such, currently, access to the McArthur River haul road is controlled by the security gate at the Key Lake operation, and only those individuals or groups identified on an access list are allowed to use to road. These resource users include members of the ERFN as well other individuals with recreational cabins, resource use cabins, commercial lodges and camps in the area.

4.7 Heritage Resources Heritage resource reconnaissance surveys for the McArthur River site area and the McArthur River haul road have been completed. One relatively recent hunting camp site was found on Boomerang Lake, which possessed bottle fragments dated as post-1950. Several heritage resources were identified along the haul road including five sites identified in and around the Wheeler River crossing. These heritage sites have not been affected by the activities of the existing McArthur River operation.

4.8 Regional Effects Monitoring

Results from routine monitoring have demonstrated that environmental performance at the McArthur River operation has remained within previously predicted and assessed values regardless of annual production rates. Specifically, monitoring results have shown that benthic invertebrate and fish populations downstream of the operation have not been impacted. Further, strong environmental controls in place at the McArthur River operation have led to significant improvements in the treated water quality and reductions in loadings to the receiving environment (see Section 4.2.2.2).

Regionally, these findings have been confirmed through monitoring programs established to monitor the potential for cumulative effects in the region. The Athabasca Working Group (AWG) provides representatives from communities located in the Athabasca basin with the opportunity to test the environment near their communities for constituents associated with uranium mining and milling operations. Results from the most recent program do not suggest an influence of active uranium mining and milling operations (CanNorth, 2014a).

In 2011, the Eastern Athabasca Regional Monitoring Program (EARMP) was established to monitor long-term changes in the aquatic environment far downstream of uranium operations in the Eastern Athabasca region. The EARMP framework includes two programs: a community program and technical program. Data collected to date in the technical program will provide a baseline to assess potential changes throughout the lifespan of the program, with the next program scheduled for 2015.

The EARMP community program is conducted annually, with the most recent report confirming that the country foods assessed were safe to eat (CanNorth, 2014b). This conclusion was supported by a Human Health Risk Assessment completed in 2013 using data collected from the EARMP community program.


APPENDIX 4A

APP

EN

DIX

4A

McArthur River operation Supplemental Information on the Existing Environment Appendix 4A

Cameco Corporation

Atmospheric Environment

The air quality monitoring conducted at routine sampling locations in the vicinity of the McArthur River operation demonstrates that there are no contributions of mining activity to changes in air quality beyond the surface lease boundaries. Tables 4A-1 and 4A-2 compare 2010 to 2014 annual averages to a range of historic data from 2006 to 2009.

Table 4A-1 Station 6.1 Hi Vol Data Comparison to Historic Values

Parameter 2006-2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average Min Max Average

As (µg/m³) 0.0005 0.0001 0.0032 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001Cu (µg/m³) 0.1394 0.0041 0.6770 0.0109 0.0128 0.0086 0.0063 0.0078Ni (µg/m³) 0.0018 0.0000 0.0126 0.0010 0.0012 0.0010 0.0006 0.0008Pb (µg/m³) 0.0086 0.0015 0.0558 0.0026 0.0021 0.0021 0.0012 0.0012Se (µg/m³) 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 0.00004Zn (µg/m³) 0.0494 0.0099 0.3870 0.0270 0.0298 0.5324 0.0102 0.0127

Pb210 (Bq/m³) 0.00069 0.00019 0.00370 0.00039 0.00056 0.00041 0.00033 0.00030Po210 (Bq/m³) 0.00032 0.00008 0.00200 0.00016 0.00023 0.00014 0.00010 0.00010Ra226 (Bq/m³) 0.00016 0.00001 0.00150 0.00007 0.00008 0.00001 0.00001 0.00005Th230 (Bq/m³) 0.00007 0.00001 0.00040 0.00004 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 0.00003

U (µg/m³) 0.00870 0.00090 0.08400 0.00455 0.00555 0.00203 0.00033 0.00040

TSP (µg/m³) 17.5 5.0 42.0 21.0 17.3 10.3 15.3 8.3


Cameco Corporation

Table 4A-2 Station 6.1.1 Hi Vol Data Comparison to Historic Values

Parameter 2006-2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average Min Max Average

As (µg/m³) 0.0013 0.0001 0.0134 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001Cu (µg/m³) 0.2505 0.0042 1.4500 0.0075 0.0097 0.0119 0.0119 0.0089Ni (µg/m³) 0.0018 0.0000 0.0097 0.0009 0.0016 0.0012 0.0012 0.0007Pb (µg/m³) 0.0044 0.0006 0.0276 0.0020 0.0016 0.0018 0.0018 0.0012Se (µg/m³) 0.0001 0.00002 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00004Zn (µg/m³) 0.0415 0.0079 0.2380 0.0136 0.0247 0.7721 0.7721 0.0118

Pb210 (Bq/m³) 0.00072 0.00014 0.00378 0.00036 0.00043 0.00045 0.00045 0.00034Po210 (Bq/m³) 0.00021 0.00007 0.00120 0.00015 0.00013 0.00012 0.00012 0.00010Ra226 (Bq/m³) 0.00004 0.00000 0.00020 0.00007 0.00003 0.00004 0.00004 0.00002Th230 (Bq/m³) 0.00003 0.00001 0.00020 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001

U (µg/m³) 0.00163 0.00010 0.01440 0.00400 0.00210 0.00120 0.00120 0.00045

TSP (µg/m³) 14.4 5.0 33.0 25.0 41.8 21.0 21.0 10.3

Station 6.1 originally served as ambient air quality monitor until it was moved in 2005, following regulatory approval, to a location downwind of Pad No. 4. It remained there until March 2012 when it was relocated to Toby Lake to re-establish it as an ambient air monitoring station. Station 6.1.1 is currently situated in the vicinity of the main residence. Its location was shifted approximately 100 m further away from the residence in July 2011 as a result of construction activities, but the purpose of the monitor has always remained to collect ambient air quality measurements for total suspended particulate originating from emissions sources in order to estimate the overall environmental air emissions from the McArthur River operation.

With regards to radon, the 1995 EIS predicted that the annual average nominal emission rate of radon from the underground ventilation exhaust would be 7 x 106 Becquerels per second (Bq/s). Monitoring conducted in the shaft since 2010 indicates that the actual measured concentration of radon from shaft exhaust has been well below this level, averaging approximately 1.8 x 106 Bq/s.

Cameco measures radon-222 concentrations at various locations in and around the McArthur River operation using track-etch samplers. Table 4A-3 presents a summary of the annual average radon concentrations for the years 2010 to 2014 compared to a range of concentrations measured from 2005 to 2009. The results for 2010-2014 show that radon-222 concentrations are within historical ranges.


Cameco Corporation

Table 4A-3 Stations AQ #1 - AQ #12 Radon-222 Monitoring Data

Station 2005-2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average Min Max Average (Bq/M3)

AQ#1 14.2 5.6 19.4 18.5 7.4 5.6 3.7 5.6 AQ#2 18.5 11.1 32.1 14.8 9.3 5.6 14.8 5.6 AQ#3 13.7 9.3 23.1 7.4 7.4 3.7 14.8 5.6 AQ#4 17.4 7.4 24.1 7.4 7.4 7.4 12.9 5.6 AQ#5 17.8 7.4 30.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 5.6 AQ#6 17.1 12.9 23.1 7.4 12.9 7.4 14.8 5.6 AQ#7 14.5 0.3 25.0 7.4 11.1 7.4 9.3 5.6 AQ#8 10.9 7.4 14.8 14.8 9.3 7.4 12.9 5.6 AQ#9 14.8 7.4 22.2 7.4 9.3 5.6 11.1 5.6

AQ#10(1) 15.8 0.3 37.0 18.5 7.4 5.6 12.9 7.4 AQ#11 12.3 0.3 19.4 11.1 7.4 5.6 3.7 5.6 AQ#12 17.3 11.1 26.8 9.3 9.3 7.4 9.3 5.6

(1)Ambient Station

Overall, a review of high-volume air composite sample results and radon track-etch sample results from 2010 to 2014 indicated that concentrations of COPCs have remained within historical ranges, and within predictions previously outlined.

This analysis is further supported by the 2013 atmospheric dispersion modelling assessment completed by SENES Consultants (SENES 2013). The assessment evaluated the effects of current activities at the mine on ambient air quality by comparing predicted concentrations of COPCs at the operation to applicable air quality criteria. The results indicated that the predicted annual concentrations of radon-222, uranium dust, TSP (and associated metals), PM2.5 and gaseous contaminants (NO2 and SO2) meet their respective criteria at the property boundary.

Aquatic Environment

Treated Water

Table 4A-4 provides a summary of mean annual concentrations of select parameters in treated water at Station 2.1 from 2010 to 2014. All parameters remained well below regulatory criteria and within the 2005 environmental risk assessment (ERA) predictions with the exception of total ammonia in 2010 and 2014, which were slightly elevated above the upper bound prediction. Of note, the average total ammonia concentrations of 0.86 and 0.79 mg/L represent un-ionized ammonia concentrations of 0.004 and 0.002 mg/L at the average pH and temperature of the treated water. These values are well below the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) un-ionized ammonia water quality guideline value for the protection of aquatic life of 0.019 mg/L.

Table 4A-5 presents the total loadings to the downstream environment. Due to substantial reductions in concentrations of key constituents of potential concern (COPCs) combined


Cameco Corporation

with lower than predicted treated water discharge volumes, all total loadings remained well below 2005 ERA predictions.

Table 4A-4 Treated Water Average Concentrations from 2010 to 2014 Compared to Previously

Assessed Values 2005 ERA

Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Expected Upper Bound

Se (mg/L) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.007Mo (mg/L) 0.911 0.338 0.225 0.188 0.212 1.00 2.70

U (µg/L) 18.20 14.70 14.10 10.70 9.70 48 202

As (mg/l) 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.007Cd (mg/L) 0.00004 0.00004 0.00001 0.00001 0.00004 0.001 0.001Co (mg/L) 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0014 0.0036Cu (mg/l) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002Pb (mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.002 0.002

Ni (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002Zn (mg/l) 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.015 0.045

Ra226 (Bq/l) 0.050 0.059 0.051 0.052 0.040 0.071 0.148Pb210 (Bq/L) 0.030 0.030 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.067 0.161Po210 (Bq/L) 0.069 0.066 0.065 0.047 0.042 0.094 0.240Th230 (Bq/L) 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.042 0.138

NH3 (mg/L) 0.860 0.590 0.550 0.600 0.790 0.3 0.7Grey shaded cell is above the upper bound ERA value 2005 ERA Expected – Average of the measured monthly mean treated water concentrations 2005 ERA Upper Bound – Average concentration plus two standard deviations (representing the 95th percentile of observed monthly average concentrations)


Cameco Corporation

Table 4A-5 Total Loadings(1) from 2010 to 2014 Compared to Predicted Values

2005 ERA

Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010

Expected

2010 Upper Bound

2011 Expected

2011 Upper Bound

2012-13 Expected

2012-13 Upper Bound

Se (kg) 4.31 4.89 3.86 3.37 4.17 10.16 23.83 10.42 27.45 10.69 28.18Mo (kg) 1691.98 678.32 526.39 429.10 414.88 3155.00 8516.47 3242.60 9911.94 3330.20 10195.76

U (kg) 34.50 30.37 32.97 24.76 23.08 152.07 637.90 156.28 742.30 160.48 763.54

As (kg) 7.15 3.64 4.24 3.84 3.03 8.72 22.43 8.96 26.04 9.20 26.78Cd (kg) 0.107 0.028 0.030 0.037 0.094 3.15 3.15 3.24 3.67 3.33 3.78Co (kg) 0.87 1.13 1.36 1.32 1.50 5.12 12.23 5.24 14.09 5.36 14.47Cu (kg) 1.84 2.34 3.11 2.49 2.68 4.56 12.44 4.64 13.47 4.73 13.68Pb (kg 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.35 2.35 5.78 2.37 6.30 2.40 6.40

Ni (kg) 2.34 2.65 2.92 3.24 3.94 3.85 8.06 3.94 9.09 4.03 9.30Zn (kg) 9.29 8.45 8.68 9.32 11.00 59.92 178.70 61.23 201.96 62.55 206.69

Ra226 (kg) 134.5 158.1 146.3 155.8 121.9 251.94 527.18 258.16 603.67 264.38 619.23Pb210 (kg) 46.4 66.5 51.8 45.5 51.0 228.81 546.27 234.68 629.48 240.55 646.41Po210 (kg) 127.0 128.0 147.1 106.8 92.7 299.94 761.24 308.18 885.29 316.41 910.51Th230 (kg) 18.7 22.6 23.2 22.7 22.7 139.46 443.96 143.14 515.28 146.82 529.79

NH3 (kg) 1705 1206 1302 1374 1814 1016.16 2295.12 1042.44 2656.91 1068.72 2730.49

(1)Loadings include both Station 2.1(Treatment Plant) and 2.7 (Shaft No. 3)

Downstream Receiving Environment

The Read Creek drainage system has a general flow direction from west to east. From the discharge point, treated water and clean Shaft No. 3 groundwater flow through the conveyance channel and enter Read Creek. Read Creek flows through Unknown Lake, Lucy Lake, and continues further eastward for approximately 4 km. Unknown Lake and Lucy Lake are the smallest along the drainage path, with surface areas less than 3 ha and maximum depths of approximately 0.2 m and 0.6 m, respectively (Ecometrix 2005). Read Creek then joins with the waters of the larger May Creek, which discharges to Little Yalowega Lake before flowing into Yalowega Lake.

Surface Water

Routine monitoring of the downstream receiving environment show that water quality at the near (Station 3.2 and Station 3.3) and far field (Station 3.5) stations downstream of the release location has met 2005 ERA predictions for key COPCs over the last several years.


Cameco Corporation

Table 4A-6 Annual Concentrations at Downstream Surface Water Sampling Locations

Station Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 ERAExpected

Read Creek at Bridge (3.2)

As (ug/L) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.3NH3-N (mg/L) 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.9

Mo (mg/L) 0.1009 0.0575 0.0252 0.0333 0.0170 1.06Se (mg/L) 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.002U (µg/L) 2 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.8 23

Read Creek 2 km d/s (3.3)

As (ug/L) 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 5.4NH3-N (mg/L) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.25

Mo (mg/L) 0.089 0.0418 0.019 0.0273 0.0275 0.79Se (mg/L) 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.001U (µg/L) 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.9 1.0 8

Little Yalowega

Lake (3.5)

As (ug/L) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.5NH3-N (mg/L) 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.2

Mo (mg/L) 0.0184 0.0117 0.007 0.0066 0.0062 0.097Se (mg/L) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.001U (µg/L) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1

2005 ERA Expected – Average of the measured monthly mean treated water concentrations

Sediment

Sediment concentrations in the near-field have shown levels in excess of assessment benchmarks for As, Mo, Se, and U. However, of the sediment values exceeding benchmarks, all values are below the NE2 values developed by Burnett-Seidel and Liber for use in northern Saskatchewan with the exception of Mo which still remained below the 2005 ERA predictions. In addition, while some sediment concentrations are above the Thompson et al. Lowest effect level (LEL) values, all recorded concentrations are below the severe effect level (SEL). Further to the above, it has been demonstrated that sediment concentrations often exceed LEL values at reference locations in northern Saskatchewan.

In the far field concentrations of Se and As exceeded the 2005 ERA predictions, however remained below the LEL values. Mo exceeded the LEL values, but remained below the 2005 ERA predictions.


Cameco Corporation

Table 4A-7 Near Field Sediment concentrations from the 2012 Comprehensive Aquatic Monitoring

Program versus the 2005 Ecological Risk Assessment

Parameter Unknown Lake

2005 ERA

Benchmark (NE2)

Benchmark (LEL)

Benchmark (SEL)

Arsenic (µg/g) 8 5.8 522 9.8 346.4Molybdenum (µg/g) 274 644.0 245 13.8 1,238.5

Selenium (µg/g) 3 2.6 29.7 1.9 16.1Uranium (µg/g) 145 93.0 2296 104.4 5,874.1

Table 4A-8

Far Field Sediment concentrations from the 2012 Comprehensive Aquatic Monitoring Program versus the 2005 Ecological Risk Assessment

Parameter Little

Yalowega Lake

2005 ERA

Benchmark (NE2)

Benchmark (LEL)

Benchmark (SEL)

Arsenic (µg/g) 4 2.7 522 9.8 346.4Molybdenum (µg/g) 134 147.0 245 13.8 1,238.5

Selenium (µg/g) 2 1.3 29.7 1.9 16.1Uranium (µg/g) 14 14.0 2296 104.4 5,874.1

Improvements to the water treatment process at site have led to significantly reduced concentrations and loadings of key COPCs to the downstream environment. As sediment COPC concentration trends typically follow trends in water quality, Cameco anticipates that the improvements in treated water quality will be realized in the receiving environment over time.

As depicted in Table 4.3-2, the total volume of treated water released from the McArthur River operation is substantially lower than the volumes assessed in the 2005 and 2009 ERAs. Moreover, as shown in Table 4A-5, the total loadings from 2010 – 2014 are lower than the predicted loadings for all parameters.

Given that the observed loadings are less than those predicted in the 2005 ERA, there is no implication on the predictions and hazard quotients (HQs) provided in that assessment. Further, as demonstrated in the 2012 Comprehensive Aquatic Monitoring Report, there is no indication that the benthic invertebrate communities or fish populations are being negatively affected by the operation.

Dose to Public

In the 2005 ERA it was shown that human receptors are not considered to be at risk to radiation exposure from the McArthur River operation. During operations, under upper-bound treated water conditions, the maximum incremental dose to the public was shown to be at or below 0.025 mSv/a, representing 2% of the allowable dose established for exposure of the general public (1 mSv/a). Further, predicted dose values for the expected case did not exceed the 1 mSv/a benchmark during the post-closure period.


Cameco Corporation

The majority of incremental doses from the 2005 ERA were related to the ingestion of terrestrial animals, of which water was the primary pathway of interest. As shown in Table 4A-4, measured concentrations of radionuclides in the treated water at McArthur River are considerably lower than those assessed in the 2005 ERA. In addition, the total volume of treated water released to the environment has been well below the expected values in the 2005 assessment. As a result, there are no changes to the conclusions from the human health risk assessment performed in 2005.

SECTION 5.0

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

POT

EN

TIA

L E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L

EFF

EC

TS

AN

D M

ITIG

AT

ION

ME

ASU

RE

S


5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

There are no physical changes to the McArthur River operation, or its approved operational activities or management systems specific to this request. The proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U can be achieved utilizing the existing facilities and by continuing to maintain and optimize the strong controls in place to manage and monitor the previously assessed and approved impacts to the environment, and worker health and safety. Further, there are effective and comprehensive operational programs and procedures in place to manage and to respond to unplanned events related to approved activities at McArthur River operation. To date, these operational programs and procedures have had limited possible environmental effects related to accidents and malfunctions.

An analysis was completed to determine the potential radiological risk associated with an increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg. This analysis involved a statistical analysis to determine the correlation between production rates and worker exposure. A review of dosimetry data for periods where quarterly production rates exceeded the proposed annual rate (equivalent to 2.4 M kg U per quarter) was also completed. This analysis and review determined that the potential incremental dose contributions associated with production of up to 9.6 M kg U annually are small and are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall average effective dose received by workers at the McArthur River operation (Appendix 5A). Further, the analysis concluded that the potential risk is effectively mitigated through current processes and that no additional mitigation measures will be needed to facilitate an increase in the nominal annual production limit of 9.6 M kg U.


APPENDIX 5A

APP

EN

DIX

5A

McArthur River operation Radiological Dose Asssessment Appendix 5A

Cameco Corporation i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 2 3.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 5 4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 5

List of Tables


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Cameco believes production of up to 9.6 million kg of U annually will not result in any significant change to the overall average effective dose received by workers at the McArthur River operation. Exposures are currently well within regulatory limits and no appreciable changes to exposures are expected as a result of the proposed increase in nominal annual production capacity to 9.6 milliong kg U.

In order to assess the potential radiological risk associated with annual production of 9.6 million kg of U, a statistical analysis was completed to determine the correlation between production rates and worker exposure. A review of dosimetry data for periods where quarterly production rates exceeded the proposed annual rate (equivalent to 2.4 million kg U per quarter) was also completed. This analysis and review determined that the potential incremental dose contributions associated with production of up to 9.6 million kg U annually are small and are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall average effective dose received by workers at the McArthur River operation.

2.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Cameco used a regression analysis to assess if a statistically significant relationship exists between a number of parameters to determine how uranium production may impact exposure to gamma, long-lived radioactive dust (LLRD), radon progeny (RnP) dose, and total effective dose. Cameco completed this for the four underground job groups at the McArthur River operation: underground personnel; underground miner; underground support worker; and underground maintenance. Of 105 such comparisons using data collected from 2004 to 2013 at the McArthur River operation, a total of twelve were determined to have statistically significant correlations, six of which were positive correlationsrelating to the underground miners job group.

An annual production rate of 9.6 million kg of U is equivalent to a quarterly production rate of 2.4 million kg of U. This rate is noted on Figure 5A-1, which illustrates the relationship between quarterly effective dose for underground job groups and ore production. At this production rate, a quarterly effective dose of 0.58 mSv is anticipated for underground job groups. This predicted average effective quarterly dose remains well below regulatory limits and within the range of exposures received historically at the McArthur River operation for these job groups.


Figure 5A-1

Quarterly Effective Dose for U/G Job Groups vs. Ore Production

Ore production rates have varied since production flexibility was implemented in 2010 and there have been multiple quarters where the ore production was higher than 2.4 million kg U per quarter (9.6 million kg U per year). Production statistics for each quarter are presented in Table 5A-1. During this time, the McArthur River operation produced at a maximum rate of 2.65 million kg U (Q3-2013), in addition to several other quarters above the equivalent annual production rate of 9.6 million kg U, while doses were effectively managed utilizing existing controls. These trends support the conclusion that the requested change to is within historical ranges and that radiological dose remains well controlled regardless of production rate, thus continuing to meet the objective of the licensing basis.

Table 5A-1 Radiation Dose of Underground Workers in Quarters where Uranium Production was over 2.4 M kg U

Year Quarter U

Produced (kg)

U/G Personnel

Dose (mSv)

U/G Miner Dose

(mSv)

U/G Support Worker

Dose (mSv)

U/G Maintenance Dose (mSv)

2013 3 2,648,494 0.29 0.59 0.63 0.29 2011 3 2,548,285 0.30 0.83 0.68 0.34 2013 1 2,519,671 0.23 0.50 0.55 0.27 2009 4 2,470,532 0.35 1.19 0.74 0.47 2007 4 2,412,991 0.30 0.99 0.62 0.42

0.58

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000

Effective Dose for U

/G Jo

b Group

s(mSv)

Ore Production (kg U)

Quarterly Average Effective Dose (mSv) 95% Prediction Interval

Predicted Dose (mSv) Requested Production Increase


The incremental dose contributions potentially associated with production of up to 9.6 million kg U annually are small and are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall average effective dose received by underground workers at the McArthur River operation. As such, the average effective dose received by the individual and combined underground job groups is not anticipated to significantly increase and is anticipated to remain below levels originally predicted (McArthur River Phase II Construction Application - Supplemental Information, February 1998). This document had predicted that an underground raisebore operator and labourer may expect 6 mSv/year and 5.4 mSv/year effective doses, respectively.

The annual production and average effective dose for underground workers are tabulated in Table 5A-2. These data show that the increased rates of production have not negatively impacted worker doses and that they have been effectively managed by the existing controls to manage radiation exposure at the McArthur River operation.

Table 5A-2 Average Annual Effective Dose for Underground Job Groups

Job Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 Underground Personnel Dose (mSv) 1.13 1.19 0.97 0.92 Underground Miner Dose (mSv) 2.72 2.70 2.04 1.77 Underground Support Worker Dose (mSv) 2.42 2.53 2.29 1.80 Underground Maintenance Dose (mSv) 1.24 1.29 0.89 0.99 Production (M kg U) 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.8

The production data and underground worker doses are compared in Figure 5A-2. Since 2010, annual production rates have steadily increased while managing to control and reduce average effective doses to employees.

Figure 5A-2 Uranium Produced and Underground Worker Average Effective Dose Since 2004

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

6,200,000

6,400,000

6,600,000

6,800,000

7,000,000

7,200,000

7,400,000

7,600,000

7,800,000

8,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average Effective Dose

Ore Produ

ction (kg U)

U Produced (kg) Underground Worker Average Effective Dose (mSv)


3.0 CONCLUSION Quarterly and annual effective doses at the McArthur River operation from 2010 to 2013 demonstrate that the existing programs are effective in controlling dose. From the risk assessment, it can be concluded that there is potentially a relationship between dose and production. This relationship can be managed by the effective use of the Code of Practice and the controls outlined in the existing radiation protection program at the McArthur River operation. Further, the predicted doses remain within the historical range of doses received at the McArthur River operation and will pose negligible additional risk to the health and safety of workers. These data also show that risk is effectively mitigated through current processes and that no additional mitigation measures are needed to safely facilitate an increase in nominal annual production capacity to 9.6 million kg U.

4.0 REFERENCES

SECTION 6.0

MONITORING

MO

NIT

OR

ING


6.0 MONITORING In accordance with Cameco’s safety, health, environment, and quality (SHEQ) management programs, comprehensive monitoring programs have been implemented at the McArthur River operation to assess performance and regulatory compliance in those areas. No changes will be required to these monitoring programs as a result of the requested change.

Cameco’s site environmental personnel perform environmental inspection and monitoring activities. Minewater is treated at the McArthur River operation in the primary and secondary water treatment plants.

A composite sample is collected during the transfer of treated mine water to the monitoring ponds from the treated water holding tank. The water sample is then sent to a laboratory to ensure the water meets water quality release limits. Treated water that does not comply with regulatory discharge criteria or concentrations for parameters specified in the Environmental Code of Practice will not be released to the environment but recycled for additional treatment.

Monitoring data is collected through the ongoing Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program, and special investigations. Cameco also submits Status of the Environment (SOE) reports every five years to regulatory agencies, which summarize the results of environmental monitoring and special investigation data in comparison to predictions made in the environmental impact statement for the McArthur River Project, as well as the 2005 ERA that focused on the Read Creek drainage.

Radiological monitoring of the McArthur River operation includes routine radiological monitoring for radon progeny, long-lived radioactive dust (LLRD) and gamma radiation. This monitoring is conducted for both dosimetry and exposure control purposes.

Safety monitoring of the McArthur River mining facilities includes, but is not limited to: air quality testing; life safety equipment checks; medical and physical monitoring of workers; and routine security checks.

The McArthur River operation recognizes that quality management is essential to ensuring the operation of the facility is carried out safely, effectively, and efficiently. The system for managing quality at the operation includes monitoring compliance, identification of and follow-up to incidents, and reviewing the management systems on a regular basis.


SECTION 7.0

CONCLUSION

CO

NC

LU

SIO

N


7.0 CONCLUSION

McArthur River operation is 15 years into mining the McArthur River deposit, and expects to continue mining until economic extraction can no longer continue. McArthur River operation proposes an increase in the nominal annual production limit to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) in a manner that provides operational flexibility and maintains Cameco’s commitment to worker health and safety and a clean environment.

Cameco is requesting Ministerial approval pursuant to Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for a proposed change in the approved development that is the McArthur River operation. This proposed change involves an increase in the nominal annual production limit at the McArthur River operation to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8), a 13% increase above the currently approved limit of 8.5 M kg U (22 M lbs U3O8).

Cameco provides a summary of the proposed increase in the nominal annual production limit and the associated potential residual environmental effects in the proposal. This information supports Cameco’s view that a Ministerial Approval could be issued pursuant to Subsection 16(2)(a) of The Environmental Assessment Act for the proposed production limit increase. This is based on the following:

• The proposed change does not pose any new or significant environmental risks and will not constitute significant changes to the environmental impacts previously reviewed and approved at the McArthur River operation.



The proposed change can be achieved with existing facilities, activities and management systems in place at the McArthur River operation and along the approved transportation corridor between McArthur River operation and Key Lake operation. As a result, the potential environmental effects that will be introduced by the production increase will largely be managed and mitigated in accordance with existing management systems that maintain Cameco’s commitment to safety and environment, people, integrity and excellence at the McArthur River operation. Furthermore, formal change management processes within the licensing framework include regulatory review and acceptance; involve design control, facility change control, subject matter expert reviews; and formal risk assessment.


SECTION 8.0

REFERENCES

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

McArthur River operation A Proposal to Increase Production to 9.6 M kg U (25 M lbs U3O8) References

8.0 REFERENCES Cameco (Cameco Corporation). 1995. Environmental Impact Statement. McArthur River Project. October 1995. Submitted on behalf of the McArthur River Joint Venture. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Cameco. 1996. Addendum. Environmental Impact Statement. McArthur River Project. June 1996. Submitted on behalf of the McArthur River Joint Venture. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Cameco. 2004. McArthur River Operation/Key Lake Operation: Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Proposed Production Increase. Appendix 2 - Technical Assessment – Relationship between U3O8 Production Rate and Effluent Quality and Quantity at the Key Lake and McArthur River Operations. Hein, G., Panasiuk, S. October 2004. CanNorth (Canada North Environmental Services). 2014a. Athabasca Working Group Environmental Monitoring Program for the Athabasca Communities 2013 Annual Report. CanNorth. 2014b. Eastern Athabasca Regional Monitoring Program 2012 Community Report. EcoMetrix (EcoMetrix Incorporated). 2005. McArthur River Operation: Environmental Risk Assessment 2005.


proposal increase in nominal annual production …€¦ · a proposal to increase nominal annual...

Documents