ML20248D573

Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor

ML20248D573
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/03/1989
From:	Kohn S KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20248D557	List: ML20248D554 ML20248D573
References
NUDOCS 8908110080
Download: ML20248D573 (2)

Text

..

v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

JC'.Fi;E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'a NkC

) *89 July 5 A9:26 l l In re JOSEPH J. MACKTAL ) OI-4-89-008

)

6F40 -  ; j ,, y DOCKL;k6 5:iinymr MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION E ' '%i i Mr. Macktal hereby petitions the NRC for Reconsideration of its January 22, 1989 Order for the following reasons:

1. The NRC subpoena was filed for improper purposes.

See e.g., U.S. v.Powell 85 S.Ct. 248 (1965);

2. The NRC lacks jurisdiction over matters presently before the Department of Labor ( DOL"). See e.g. CLI-89-06 (April 20, 1989);

3. The NRC attempted to sabotage Macktal's case i

before the DOL.. Specifically, the findings of NRC staff and commission that the Macktal settlement was legal was utilized by Brown & Root Inc. in an attempt to have the Secretary of Labor (" SOL")("B & R")le ru against Macktal;

4. For reasons set forth in our motion for recusation also filed with the NRC today; l' 5. The NRC's failure to take into account Mr.

Macktal's requests to be a witness before ASLB proceedings which is currently being contested in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and D.C.

Circuits;

6. The NRC's issuance of the subpoena as a sole

• consequence of acquiescing to political pressure. SEC

v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co., 648 F.2d 118, (3rd 4 Cir. 1981) ;

y

7. The NRC has stated that Mr. Macktal failed to provide information to the NRC. This is a distortion of the facts. Mr. Macktal has freely testified before the U.S. Senate. He provided testimony to staff in t

1986. Staff was aware that Macktal did not brief them

! as to information on harassment and intimidation.

j Staff did not care about these concerns in 1986, 1987,

1988 or the first part of 1989. Only after the U.S.

-i Senate became involved with this case did staff or the NRC renew its interest in matters.

-I 890GJ10080 890703 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 1

? $i b

+ '8. The'NRC is improperly issuing a subpoena while there is an on i ' investigation.~ going U.S. Department.of Justice

v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 98 S.Ct.

2357 (1978); Donaldson v. U.S., 91 S.Ct. 534.(1971).

i. Mr. Macktal requests oral argument. Mr..Macktal L further requests that for the above-stated reasons the subpoena issued by OI be quashed in its entirety.

i Respectf suba ted, i

I StepN6n M. Kohn Michael D. Kohn KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

526 U Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 Attorneys for J. Macktal i l July 3, 1989 s

1 I

i l

l 4

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - I