Dear 'Links,
We received confirmation from the State today that getting gas to the plant would require either laying a mile of pipes through land, as in going through our neighborhood streets or even private public property or docking LNG tankers next to Salem Harbor Station. Footprint Power has convinced the North Shore Chamber to endorse their plan. We, however, still have many concerns as explained by Pat Gozemba's letter below.
Salem News April 3, 2012 Letter: Many valid concerns regarding future of power plantTo the editor: Your Tuesday, March 27, editorial ("No surprise: HealthLink pans Footprint plan for power-plant site") and front-page story ("HealthLink opposes coal plant successor") both make light of concerns regional neighbors and Salem residents have about the very sketchy Footprint proposal for the Dominion property in Salem. In contrast, Dolores Jordan's March 29 letter ("Residents need to know more of Footprint's plan") asks some of the vital questions she and neighbors of the plant like myself want to have answered. All we know for sure so far is that Footprint has requested a license to generate 720 MWh of power using natural gas and diesel fuel. Natural gas, even though it causes some health and environmental problems, is a far cleaner fossil fuel than the coal and oil currently used at the site. That's progress. But where will the supply of gas for such a large plant come from? Will a pipeline be trenched or horizontally drilled through neighborhoods on or adjacent to Salem Neck to get gas to the plant? Will LNG tankers be needed to deliver fuel through the harbor accessing the Salem Designated Port Area (DPA)? Will Salem become the LNG port facility that was rejected in 2011 for the Fall River DPA after a nine-year struggle by community leaders? And how will diesel fuel be brought to the plant site? By tankers coming through Salem Sound, risking a precious marine resource to deliver highly polluting fuel? The shipping of both diesel and LNG in Salem Sound is unacceptable to SAFE. The 2011 reuse study for the power-station site proposed waterfront development, light industry, park amenities and a natural gas plant half the size of Footprint's proposal. As a member of that study group, I supported those conclusions, and the large majority of Salem residents who attended the public meetings did, as well. SAFE calls for redevelopment that is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods and that replaces essential tax revenue for Salem. We have been stuck for 60 years with having our historic harbor blighted with an eyesore of a polluting power plant. Let's do better this time. Generations to come in Salem are depending on our vigilance. Patricia A. Gozemba Co-Chair, SAFE Salem http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1940327032/Letter-Many-valid-concerns-regarding-future-of-power-plant http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1437242296/Letter-Resident-need-to-know-more-of-Footprints-plans/print | 
