Officials: Centralia sinkhole unrelated to underground fire | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Officials: Centralia sinkhole unrelated to underground fire

Associated Press
765900_web1_JMM-CENTRALIA-02-02
Tribune-Review File
A file photo from 2010 of one of the abandoned streets in Centralia, Pa., where a mine fire has burnt below the ground since 1962. (Tribune-Review file)
765900_web1_JMM-CENTRALIA-02-06
Tribune-Review File
A file photo from 2010 of one of the abandoned streets in Centralia, Pa., where a mine fire has burnt below the ground since 1962. (Tribune-Review file)
765900_web1_JMM-CENTRALIA-02-05
Tribune-Review File
A file photo from 2010 of one of the abandoned streets in Centralia, Pa., where a mine fire has burnt below the ground since 1962. (Tribune-Review file)
765900_web1_JMM-CENTRALIA-02-07
Tribune-Review File
A file photo from 2010 of one of the abandoned streets in Centralia, Pa., where a mine fire has burnt below the ground since 1962. (Tribune-Review file)

CENTRALIA, Pa. — State environmental authorities say a 100-foot sinkhole found in a central Pennsylvania town almost completely emptied by a decades-long underground fire is unrelated to the blaze.

The (Bloomsburg) Press Enterprise reports that a Department of Environmental Protection crew started work Friday to fill the sinkhole near Route 61 in Centralia. Work is expected to continue this week.

The Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation says it’s due to mine subsidence on a different underground coal seam, and mine maps indicate such things occurred before the fire.

A $42 million federal relocation program moved more than 1,000 people out of Centralia by the late 1980s because of the fire that’s burned underground since 1962. Only a few people who sued for the right to remain still live there.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.