<PAGE> 1
FORM 6-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the month of February 2000
International Uranium Corporation
(Translation of registrant's name into English)
Independence Plaza, Suite 950, 1050 Seventeenth Street, Denver, CO 80265
(Address of principal executive offices)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
Form 20-F X Form 40-F
--- ---
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Yes No X
--- ---
If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________________.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
International Uranium Corporation
(Registrant)
Date: February 23, 2000 By: /s/ Earl E. Hoellen
----------------- ----------------------------------
Earl E. Hoellen, President
<PAGE> 2
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit Number Description
- -------------- -----------
99.1 February 2000 Press Release
<PAGE> 1
EXHIBIT 99.1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULES IN FAVOR OF IUC PROCESSING FUSRAP
MATERIALS AT WHITE MESA MILL
February 17, 2000 (IUC - TSE) ...International Uranium Corporation (the
"Company") is pleased to announce that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC") has upheld an amendment to IUC's Atomic Energy Act ("AEA") license which
allowed IUC to receive and process at its White Mesa Mill ("Mill") in Utah
approximately 44,000 tons of uranium-bearing material excavated from the Ashland
2 FUSRAP site. This decision by the five NRC Commissioners ("Commission")
affirmed an earlier ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB")
just over one year ago, and resolved in IUC's favor a long-standing dispute with
the State of Utah ("State") over the types of materials that can be processed as
alternate feeds at the Mill. Specifically, the Commission ruled that the
economic motivation or business objectives of the mill operator are irrelevant
in determining whether a given material can be processed as an alternate feed.
Instead, according to the Commission, the relevant inquiry is whether the
alternate feed material will be processed to recover uranium and if it is
reasonable to expect that uranium will be recovered. In IUC's view this decision
validates our long held view that the recycle of uranium-bearing waste material
through a licensed uranium mill is not only an environmentally superior
alternative to the direct disposal of these materials, but is also an
appropriate, reasonable and valid alternative, as well.
In 1998, IUC received a license amendment from the NRC to process, as an
alternate feed, uranium-bearing material that was going to be excavated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from the Ashland 2 former defense site. The Corps
of Engineers has responsibility for the environmental remediation of these
former defense sites under the U.S. Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSRAP"). The State objected to the processing
of the Ashland 2 materials on the basis that the recycling fee paid to IUC by
the Corps of Engineers exceeded the expected value of the uranium that could be
recovered from these materials. They argued that IUC's "primary" purpose was not
to recover uranium, but rather to obtain a large handling and disposal fee. As
such, the State believed that the processing of the Ashland 2 materials at the
Mill for the recovery of uranium was merely a "sham," and that the materials
should be disposed of directly in a disposal-only facility. The ASLB reviewed
this dispute and, in February 1999, ruled that the processing of the Ashland 2
material by IUC was not a "sham" and that the processing of this material was in
accordance with the requirements of the AEA. The State subsequently appealed the
ASLB decision to the Commission.
In its decision, the Commission concluded that a material may be properly
processed as an alternate feed at a uranium mill if the material is actually
processed for the recovery of uranium "within the course of the nuclear fuel
cycle." According to the Commission "any other underlying or 'hidden' issues
that might be driving the overall transaction," such as the receipt of a
recycling fee, are irrelevant to the determination of whether a material can
appropriately be processed as an alternate feed. In addition, the Commissioners
found that a requirement for the NRC staff to "scrutinize the motives behind a
transaction is neither compelled by statutory language...nor reflects sound
policy." The Commission explained that the AEA "does not require that the market
value of uranium recovered be the licensee's predominant interest, and
thus...does not require the NRC to assure that no other incentives lie behind
the licensee's interest in processing material for uranium." Furthermore, the
Commission noted that "...making such purely economic considerations a
determinative part of the [NRC] staff's review would unnecessarily divert agency
resources to issues unrelated to public health and safety." Essentially, the
Commission adopted the position that if it is reasonable to conclude that
<PAGE> 2
uranium could be recovered from processing an alternate feed material and that
such processing would indeed take place, then the processing of that alternate
feed material in accordance with all NRC health and safety regulations would be
permissible and appropriate under the AEA. In fact, as part of their finding,
the Commission directed the NRC staff to revise the alternate feed guidance to
clearly reflect this intent.
It should be noted that, while this decision represents a final agency action by
the NRC on this matter, the State of Utah could still appeal this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals. However, IUC has been working with the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") to resolve any concerns that UDEQ
has regarding the operations at IUC's White Mesa Mill. IUC and UDEQ have made
considerable progress in this regard to date. Irrespective of this favorable NRC
ruling, IUC intends to continue working with UDEQ to cooperatively resolve any
outstanding issues in a manner that will provide UDEQ with the regulatory
comfort that it desires while still allowing IUC to pursue the development of
its alternate feed business. IUC remains optimistic that this objective will be
achieved.
Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, IUC is engaged in the business of recycling
uranium-bearing waste products as an environmentally superior alternative to the
direct disposal of these waste products. In addition, IUC is engaged in the
selling and trading of uranium recovered from these operations and other
commercial activities in the international nuclear fuel market. IUC also
produces and sells vanadium and other metals that can be produced as a
co-product with uranium.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
/s/ Earl E. Hoellen
- ---------------------------
Earl E. Hoellen
President
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
International Uranium Corporation wishes to caution readers that disclosures
made in the foregoing press release to Shareholders, which are not historical
facts, are forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and
other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include,
but are not limited to, volatility and sensitivity to market prices for uranium
and vanadium, competition, environmental regulations, the impact of changes in
foreign currencies' exchange rates, political risk arising from operating in
Mongolia, changes in government regulation and policies including trade laws and
policies, demand for nuclear power, dependence on a limited number of customers,
replacement of reserves and production, receipt of permits and approvals from
governmental authorities (including amendments for each alternate feed
transaction) and other operating and development risks. As a result of the
foregoing and other factors, no assurance can be given as to the future results,
levels of activity and achievement.
