[ASSURAS] We continue with nuclear energy and its challenges. Besides needing to figure out what to do with all the radioactive waste from power plants, there are plenty of other critical questions, especially since the Fukushima disaster in Japan. To answer some of them, we turn to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, created in 1974 and charged with overseeing nuclear power companies and ensuring the safe use of radioactive materials. I recently sat down with the NRC's chairman, Gregory Jaczko.

I'd like to begin by asking about the storage of spent nuclear fuel rods. It's part of the discussion in our show. And because we all think about Fukushima. Such rods contributed to radiation release in that disaster. There is no permanent site here in the United States because the Yucca Mountain storage site has been taken off the table. So, are the spent fuel rods here safe?

[JACZKO] Our job at the NRC is to make sure that they are. We work with all of the power plants that have spent fuel that is stored in a variety of different ways, in wet pools similar to what we saw in Japan, as well as, in some cases, they've taken that fuel out of these pools and put them into hardened dry cask storage. That really is, we think, a very safe and secure way to store this fuel for at least 60, 70, or up to 100 years.

[ASSURAS] Why not, long-term, put the nuclear waste in the WIPP place, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, for example, in New Mexico, these salt caverns? They tell us they have room, the technology is there, so why not that, long-term?

[JACZKO] Well, in general, the commission believes that a geologic repository is really ultimately the right long-term solution for spent fuel. The challenge that we faced as a nation -- and we're not the only country that struggles with this issue -- is where to find that repository.

[ASSURAS] I bring WIPP up again, because that area says, "Sure, we'd be happy to have the stuff." Would it work?

[JACZKO] Well, it's a type of material, it's more of a salt environment than a granite or rock environment like Yucca Mountain. And we haven't studied that particular site, but in general, we believe it's possible to store spent fuel in this type of environment, as well as potentially many others.

[ASSURAS] Is Yucca really dead?

[JACZKO] Right now, we're not working on the application. The Department of Energy is not, so absent some kind of direction from Congress, it's something that we've moved on from and I wouldn't anticipate any additional work, and we have a lot of things to do. Certainly, because of the lack of a permanent geologic repository, we are looking to make sure that spent fuel will continue to be stored safely and securely.

[ASSURAS] So we're safe now?

[JACZKO] Absolutely. We believe that the methods to maintain this fuel are safe and secure, as I said, whether it's in wet storage or dry storage. These provide a good way to maintain safety. But we're not going to rest there. We will take a look at the things that happened in Fukushima Daiichi and see if there aren't some lessons we can learn, and we already know a few things that we think we can do better, and we'll look to implement those in the future.

[ASSURAS] You know, at that time, you recommended that the evacuation zone around Fukushima should be 50 miles. In this country, the evacuation zone in the case of an accident is 10. There's kind of a disconnect there. Should Americans feel comfortable with 10 miles when you recommended 50 at that particular time?

[JACZKO] I think Americans should feel comfortable that we have a regulator that's willing to do what's necessary in any situation. And we have evacuation planning zones in this country that go to 10 miles when we're talking about evacuations and those kinds of things. We also plan out to about 50 miles for kind of the later effects of an accident, where we might have to control food supplies or things like that. If we needed to in this country, the state governments, or local governments that ultimately make these decisions, they could go to larger evacuations if the situation dictated that they should.

[ASSURAS] The commission has some votes coming up on a new design, which is the Westinghouse AP1000, and whether to move ahead with the building of a couple new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, which would be the first since the '70s, really, when you think about it. When are the votes coming up, and are you recommending approval on all these things?

[JACZKO] We anticipate probably the end of the year or early next year, we'll be at a point where we can make some final decisions on both the AP1000 design and then those applications for plants in Georgia and then in South Carolina that would use that design. But right now, our staff has done a very thorough review. The staff at the agency has found that at this point they believe that these designs are safe. And then the plants, themselves, the applications have met our standards.

[ASSURAS] Where is this country going to go when it comes to nuclear power, as far as you're concerned?

[JACZKO] That's always a difficult question for the regulator. Our job is to make sure that, if people choose nuclear -- if utilities decide that that's economically viable, that it meets all of their requirements for electricity generating sources, that that can be done safely and securely. So, if there's going to be new nuclear in this country, then my job is to make sure that that's safe and secure.

[ASSURAS] You can watch more of my interview with Chairman Jaczko on our Web site -- energyNOW.com.