Thirty years after nuclear power plants were last built, 17 utilities are planning to build 26 plants across the country, led by two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Burke County. Yet the issue that stopped reactor construction for so long -- safety -- remains a factor in public consideration of the new plans today.

As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission spends the next two years considering the application for the Vogtle reactors, the public will debate the two prongs of the safety question.

First is the risk of a reactor accident, with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl being the most dramatic examples. Second is the danger that spent fuel will pose a health hazard as it is stored for the next million years.

Advocates point to the American industry's track record. No one was killed or sickened as a result of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, which released nuclear material into the atmosphere, and cancer incidence hasn't risen in the part of Pennsylvania where the plant was located.

The design of American plants includes backup safety features that have minimized risks, said Ashok Bhatnagar, the head of the Tennessee Valley Authority's three reactors.

Critics warn that the magnitude of potential hazards is reason enough to be cautious.

Ed Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, acknowledges that people aren't worried, including residents in the shadow of reactors.

"If you live near a power plant and nothing happens, you feel comfortable," he said.

He lists some risks, from terrorist attacks to human error to an accident during refueling when many of the safety features are shut down for maintenance.

Only luck prevented the Three Mile Island accident from becoming a meltdown, because a shift change brought workers who recognized the problem and how to stop it, Mr. Lyman said. A terrorist attack has become a real possibility, he said, noting that a report from the NRC showed 10 percent of mock attacks were successful.

Mr. Lyman concluded that a terrorist attack against a reactor near an urban area could result in 40,000 deaths shortly after the attack and as many as 500,000 later from cancer. Children could face thyroid cancer hundreds of miles away because the NRC requires iodine treatment only for people living within 10 miles of a plant, he said.

The NRC could raise the safety standards for new plants, he said, by adding redundant safety measures and ensuring adequate evacuation routes . However, the agency hasn't called for higher standards, he said.

"The NRC is terrified that if they were to make a statement that imposed additional regulations on the next generation of reactors to make them safer, then it would start people wondering if existing reactors weren't safe now," he said.

He also worries about the possibility of earthquakes disturbing stored waste.

Nuclear advocates say the waste could be minimized by reprocessing spent fuel rods for repeat use, as other countries do. President Carter set policy against that so no one would think the procedure was being used to produce weapons-grade material.

Even if reprocessing isn't employed, the current methods of storing spent fuel have been adequate so far, advocates say.

"We've been generating nuclear waste for 60 years. Nobody has been killed or injured as a result of dealing with nuclear waste for 60 years," said Lee Dodds, the head of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee.

Reach Walter Jones at (404) 589-8424 or walter.jones@morris.com.