Campbell County Commissioners go over nuclear resolution, again

GILLETTE — At their regular meeting this week, the Campbell County Commissioners had yet another conversation on nuclear energy and nuclear waste.

A resolution that was brought forth by Commissioner Jerry Means last month came up for more discussion Tuesday morning. The commissioners didn’t take action on the resolution but instead used their time to elaborate on their stance on nuclear waste and listen to what the public had to say.

The resolution says the county will follow these guidelines:

• No interim nuclear storage, domestically produced or relocated
• No consolidated interim storage, domestically produced or relocated
• No deep geological repository
• No exemptions granted for interim storage, consolidated storage or geological repository

The resolution also proposes putting a question on the 2026 general election ballot asking voters if they want nuclear waste to be stored in Campbell County.

Means said he wants the resolution because he’s concerned about Campbell County becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

“I’m not totally against nuclear. I’m not against progress,” Chairman Kelley McCreery said. “I’m against high-level nuclear waste coming here when we don’t produce the power that causes it.”

Commissioners Scott Clem and Jim Ford reiterated their concerns about whether the county can even put a question like this on the ballot.

“I don’t think state law supports putting this on the ballot. That could change,” Ford said. “If we choose to adopt this resolution, we need to be concise, clear and do it right.”

Clem worried that this resolution is setting up the community for “failure or frustration” by saying the taxpayers will be able to vote on this issue.

“I am not opposed to saying no to the federal government, as far as long-term storage of nuclear waste,” Clem said, adding that the state law doesn’t allow for it currently.

“I think it’s premature, and I would like to take our time,” Ford said, adding that the Department of Energy will soon release its plan on finding a permanent geological repository for high level nuclear waste that will require the consent of whatever community is selected.

“I’m not afraid of nuclear power, or nuclear waste, or low level nuclear waste, half as much as I am afraid of politicians and big companies and these people that will slant things the wrong way,” McCreery said, citing his past experiences as a rancher working with oil and methane companies.

County resident Laura Cox said she’s not overly confident in the government figuring out a solution for permanent waste storage.

“The DMV doesn’t work, the IRS doesn’t work — what part of the government does work?” Cox asked. “They’re not good at solving these problems.”

Councilman Jack Clary said the community is “in fear of” nuclear waste, and he asked the commissioners to put an end to it right now.

“You’re the last firewall we have in this community to stop this nuclear thing. If the people don’t want it, you need to respect their wishes,” Clary said. “If you listen to the community, they’re strongly supportive of this. It shouldn’t even come to Wyoming.”

He said that he ran chemical plants in California and Montana that dealt with boron and phosphoric acid, and that he had a chance to speak up against it, but he didn’t.

“We didn’t listen, we pushed it through, we got what we wanted, but it was not good for the public,” he said.

Clary wasn’t the only representative from City Hall at the meeting.

Mayor Shay Lundvall showed up to the meeting to make the statement that the city and the county are on the same page. 

Earlier this year, McCreery came to a city council meeting to voice his displeasure on “secret” meetings about nuclear power and said he believed the relationship between the city and the county was not in a good place.

Lundvall said he and McCreery had the chance to talk and “ensure we move forward together, united and focused on progress, not public conflict.”

“The lines of communication between the mayor and (commission) chair are wide open,” Lundvall said.

“We’ll keep this stuff out in the open,” McCreery said. “This is the goal, the city and county can be transparent, even in our discussions with each other.”

The resolution will come up for more discussion at a future commission meeting.

This story was published on Oct. 24, 2025.