Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Romulus and neighboring communities update council on ongoing legal fight to block radioactive waste at Van Buren landfill
Summary
Outside counsel updated Romulus City Council on the status of a multi-jurisdiction lawsuit seeking to halt disposal of radioactive material at a landfill near Belleville, describing recent evidentiary hearings, witnesses called and the court schedule for closing arguments.
Brandon Gresco, outside counsel for Romulus and several neighboring jurisdictions, told the Romulus City Council on June 23 that litigation over radioactive waste shipments to the Van Buren/Belleville landfill remains active and that the court will hear closing arguments on July 1.
Gresco, representing the coalition of municipal clients, summarized filings and an evidentiary hearing held May 19–20, and said the plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order in state court shortly after the county and municipalities filed suit in September 2024. He said defendants briefly removed the case to federal court but the matter was remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court and the evidentiary hearing proceeded there.
The attorney said testimony at the May hearing included public‑health and radiological experts and local fire‑safety witnesses, and that cross‑examination of an EGLE official established the earliest possible date for EGLE’s public hearing on the landfill’s licensing as August. Gresco described that evidence as significant to the plaintiffs’ argument that shipments risked occurring before meaningful public comment or a hearing could take place.
Gresco also described testimony that suggested economic and operational factors affected the New York remediation contractor’s choice of disposal location, and noted testimony from Republic Services witnesses that Michigan Disposal (a related entity on the same site) accepts higher radioactivity levels and may dilute material before transferring it within the complex. He said those facts were presented to the court as part of the plaintiffs’ concerns about regulatory gaps and public‑safety risks.
Gresco told the council the judge could rule from the bench, issue a written opinion shortly after July 1, or take the matter under advisement; the interim order at issue is a preliminary injunction determining whether the temporary restraining order should remain in force while litigation continues. He urged caution about discussing litigation strategy publicly because portions of the record remain privileged.
Mayor and council members thanked counsel for the update and for the intergovernmental cooperation that produced the joint legal action. Gresco said he would limit comments while the litigation remains pending but that the coalition will return to the court on July 1 for closing arguments.
The council did not take any formal vote on the litigation report during the June 23 meeting; the presentation was an informational status update from outside counsel.
