The selection of the Jaitapur site has raised great opposition due to its proximity to major fault lines, its zoning as an earthquake-risk area and its proximity to the sea (drawing comparisons to Fukushima and other tsunami-risk areas).

In light of recent nuclear disasters around the world, JNPP’s siting is being hailed as a serious threat. In addition, the Nuclear Power Company of India (NPCIL) has been roundly criticized for not even putting forward earthquake safety building plans. India’s own Earthquake Hazard Zoning System puts the Jaitapur site in Zone 3 (out of 5, where 5 is the most dangerous), while an RTI response received from the Geological Survey of India classifies Jaitapur as Zone 4 – otherwise referred to as the High Damage Risk Zone.(1)  The National Policy on Disaster Management also classifies Jaitapur under Zone 4 – prone to earthquakes of “moderate to very high intensity.”(2)  This classification would put the Jaitapur plant in the only High Damage Risk Zone for earthquakes on India’s coast.

Regardless of the site’s classification, however, Jaitapur is clearly seismically active – recording 86 tremors between 1985 and 2005 and 60 earthquake events between 1995 and 2005, the worst of which measured 6.3 on the Richter scale.(3)(4)  According to Greenpeace, over the past 20 years alone, there have been three earthquakes in Jaitapur exceeding 5 points on the Richter scale. In 1993, the region experienced one reaching 6.3, leaving 9,000 people dead. In 2009, an earthquake caused the bridge to Jaitapur to collapse.(5)

Nevertheless, India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has given approval to the Jaitapur site, stating that it meets the requirement that a nuclear plant be built at least 5 km away from a fault line.(6)  The JNPP is located 25-30 km away from the West Coast fault.(7)  However, recent history has shown us that 5 or even 30 km distance from major fault lines is not enough to protect a nuclear plant from disaster. The world watched as the Fukushima plant, located 177 km from the fault line that triggered a 9.0 earthquake, went into meltdown in March 2011 when the shock and the tsunami reached shore.  

Recent studies, furthermore, have suggested that it was the earthquake itself – not the tsunami that followed – that did the primary damage to at least one of the reactors at Fukushima.(9)  Clearly, a 5 km buffer is not a sufficient safety barrier for building nuclear plants near fault lines.

Sources:
1: Konkan Bachao Samiti.  "Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP) - Stop a Disaster in the Making."  21 January 2011.
2: It may be noted that the National Policy on Disaster Management has shown this area as Zone IV for seismicity, i.e. High Damage Risk Zone. (ndmindia.nic.in/NPDM-101209.pdf)
3: Shankar Brahme Samajvidnyan.  “Konkan: Designs of Devastation Under the Garb of Development and the People’s Struggle.”  25 December 2009.  Powerpoint.  Slide 45.
4: National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, "Environmental Impact Assessment for Proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park: Summary", page 5, Submitted September 2010.
5: Greenpeace.  “Jaitapur nuclear project in India: the next Fukushima?”
[Source] 
6: United States Geologic Services.  “Magnitude 9.0 - Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan."
[Source]
7: Asahi.com.  “Earthquake, Not Tsunami, May Have Damaged Cooling System at No. 3 Reactor.” May 2011.
[Source]