The Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill, Regional Refuse Disposal District No. 1 (RRDD1), a 98-acre Superfund site straddling the towns of Barkhamsted and New Hartford has left a toxic trail that continues to require active management
Between 1974 and 1993, the unlined landfill accepted a noxious cocktail of municipal and industrial wastes, including oily metal grindings, sludge, and bulky items. Groundwater contamination was first detected in 1981, setting off alarms about the potential health risks posed by the site.
As of June 2023, Connecticut had 13 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) which identifies “the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites needing long-term remedial action.” According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when hazardous commercial and industrial wastes are mismanaged, they pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.
In 1980, Congress established the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) which is informally called Superfund. The Superfund program is administered by the EPA in cooperation with state and tribal governments. It allows EPA to clean up hazardous waste sites and forces those responsible to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA cleanups. Nationally, in 2023 there were 1,336 Superfund sites on the NPL.
Jim Hart, former First Selectman of Barkhamsted, was the whistleblower that finally brought attention and action to the developing toxic crisis at the Barkhamsted-New Hartford landfill. Hart said, “When this facility opened in April of 1974, society did not understand the issues associated with getting rid of certain chemical waste. The primary pollutants here were metal grinding waste. At that time in the district there was a significant number of machine shops. When we first opened in the mid 1970s there was a metal grinding waste pool up here. You just dumped into the pool. You know, back then, Harry Homeowner who changed the oil in their car just threw that out in the garbage.”
As a young first selectman, Hart received a complaint of toxic runoff by a neighboring resident in 1981. After 18 months of stonewalling by the RRDD1, Hart decided to go up the food chain.
“I walked the area with the director of Farmington Valley Health. When we crossed the brook, the smell was potent to your nose, and we developed headaches. It was kind of scary.”
In the spring of 1983 Hart wrote a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) commissioner asking for significant investigation. He laughed, “Superfund designation is like having an old musket and you pull the trigger, and it takes so long before the bullet comes out the other end. The EPA moved at a snail’s pace, and it wasn’t until the late 1980s that they did investigation work that required us to install a series of groundwater monitoring wells. When the first results from these monitoring wells became known the crap really hit the fan.”
Jennifer Almquist
The Barkhamsted landfill’s poisonous legacy includes a litany of hazardous substances that have seeped into the surrounding area. Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, trichloroethylene (TCE), and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene have all been found in the soil, groundwater, and surface water near the site.
The potential threat to local residents continues. TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene contaminated the Barkhamsted town garage’s drinking water well, while antimony, arsenic, and selenium were detected at low levels in three private wells nearby. Site-related metals were found in the soil on two residential properties near the landfill, raising concerns about potential exposure. In this rural and residential area, where all properties rely on on-site drinking water wells, the threat of contamination looms large.
The EPA determined the potentially responsible parties (PRPs). In Barkhamsted-New Hartford there were a dozen machine shops and businesses in the district designated as PRPs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified 78 other PRPs, including corporate giants like Coca-Cola, Cooper Industries, and Eaton Corporation, as well as the towns of Barkhamsted, Colebrook, New Hartford, and Winchester.
The costs of remediation have been high. At least $4.5 million in state Superfund money was spent to cap the landfill in 1999. Responsible parties began groundwater monitoring programs and continue to monitor the drinking water wells close to the site.
According to Winchester Mayor and current administrator of RRDD1, Todd Arcelaschi, “The containment has been successful, except for one time in the middle 2000’s where the cap failed and there was a washout that required several hundred thousand in repairs. The landfill is visually inspected semi-annually now, groundwater and well testing is conducted quarterly.”
After the closure of the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) waste to energy (WTE) incinerator in Hartford, Arcelaschi feels the future of waste management in the Northwest corner of Connecticut will depend on what happens with the Northwest Hills Council of Governments’ efforts to form a Regional Waste Authority.
“If they successfully create one, we will still use the former MIRA Torrington Transfer Station, and our trash will likely continue to be shipped out of state, unless the Waste Authority can find available capacity for the region’s municipal solid waste (MSW) at another WTE plant in CT.”
The Superfund landfill is now in use again as the regional transfer station for RRDD1 for the towns of Winchester, New Hartford, and Barkhamsted. Of its 98 acres, approximately 13 acres contains the capped landfill, the second part of the site is currently used as the transfer station and recycling center, and the remaining space is an active solar farm generating 1.5 megawatts of electricity which helps offset recycling transfer operating costs.
"EPA completed a comprehensive review of the site last September, as documented in the Five-Year Review report, and concluded that the completed remedy is still protective of human health and the environment," said Daniel Keefe, U.S. EPA Region 1 Superfund Section Chief. "Several potential issues were identified in the report that require additional monitoring, notably the detection of emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). EPA is working with those responsible for maintaining the site to ensure that continued monitoring is performed."
While there is no evidence that anyone has gotten sick because of the contamination, and the EPA has approved the clean-up efforts, the specter of toxic exposure remains. The legacy of the Barkhamsted-New Hartford landfill Superfund site serves as a reminder of the price communities pay for improper waste disposal.
A mother bear and her cubs move through a backyard in northwest Connecticut, where residents told DEEP that bear litters are now appearing more frequently.
“We really want to hear from you,” said Justin Davis, DEEP’s bureau chief for natural resources, at the meeting. He said that DEEP is preparing a bear management report in early 2026 that evaluates the challenges the state is facing and the strategies going forward dealing with them. He said the report will include feedback from the public generated at the listening sessions. He urged attendees, however, not to turn the meeting into a discussion about whether there should be a hunt or not.
Davis called the return of black bears to Connecticut a “conservation success story,” but one that now comes with challenges. "They're large animals, they're powerful and they can become comfortable being around people--and they're opportunistic, and they love to eat."
DEEP shared data showing that black bears have been reported in nearly every Connecticut town and that conflicts involving trash, bird feeders, livestock and home entries have increased sharply in recent years. The state’s bear population was last estimated at roughly 1,100 to 1,200 animals, a number that DEEP recognizes has grown since the study was conducted in 2012.
Eric Hammering, the office director of Environmental Review & Strategic Initiatives at DEEP, told the attendees that since 2020 there have been 264 reported home entries in 38 municipalities in northwest Connecticut, citing data from the state's State of the Bears report released in March.
A home entry, he said, is defined as an event when a bear actually goes inside a resident's living space.
Attendees at the DEEP meeting in Sharon on Dec. 3By Christian Murray
DEEP officials stressed that bird feeders and unsecured household trash are the two biggest drivers of bear conflicts. They advise residents to remove feeders entirely and keep their garbage inside or in bear-resistant containers. DEEP representatives noted that once a bear discovers food, it is likely to develop habits and return.
Many attendees said they see widespread noncompliance in their neighborhoods — particularly among part-time residents and short-term rental guests who leave trash out for days. Several said they were frustrated that the people causing the problem are often not the ones who attend sessions like this.
As a result, a number of residents called for stronger statewide enforcement, including fines for leaving trash unsecured and penalties for repeated violations. Without consequences, they said, the same households will continue to attract bears and put neighbors at risk. Others described practical steps to reduce bear activity--including the use of secure dumpsters, food composting stations, and the placement of electric fencing around livestock and beehives.
Again and again, residents emphasized that the underlying issue is human behavior. One attendee summarized it succinctly: “There are 3.6 million people in Connecticut and far fewer bears. Human behavior is the problem.”
Lynn Levine, a Litchfield resident who enjoys seeing bears, said common sense steps are the answer. She said that when she first moved to the area, she mistakenly left her garage down open with a 15-pound bag of shelled peanuts inside. "A bear dragged the bag around the side of the garage, sat down and had a teddy bear picnic." She said she learned not to leave the garage door open, especially with food inside.
Not all the stories were lighthearted. An 82-year-old Sharon woman recounted repeated break-ins that left her shaken and facing thousands of dollars in repairs, including a bear walking into her kitchen while she was washing dishes. A veterinarian described livestock attacks, including an alpaca that was mauled and dragged. A farmer said bears caused about $160,000 in crop losses in one year and that cornfields across the region face similar damage.
Several speakers added that DEEP’s limited staffing means local police often end up responding when bears are struck by cars or behaving aggressively.
From the State of the Bears Report released March 2025CT DEEP
Cornwall First Selectman Gordon Ridgway, who attended the session, said afterward that he was troubled by how outdated the state’s population data is.
“My biggest personal take-away was surprise — that DEEP doesn’t have a handle on how many bears are here,” he said. “They said they haven’t surveyed them since 2012. How do you make a plan or policy without doing a survey?”
Ridgway said Cornwall has received about 40 bear-related reports this year, including home and vehicle entries and injuries to pets. “People are frightened by intrusions onto their property,” he said. “These are not happy stories.”
He noted that in 2012 -- when the state said it last did its population count -- “a bear was a novelty,” but sightings today are very common. “Today, most people see a bear every week. It’s no longer a novelty — it’s a real issue.”
Ridgway said he supports developing a statewide management plan and wants Connecticut to examine approaches used in other states, including reducing their numbers.
While most attendees at the Dec. 3 session indicated they opposed a hunt, Ridgway said that is not a true reflection of how his constituents in Cornwall view the issue. “If we had a vote, it would be close as to whether there should be a hunting season.”
Only one attendee — a longtime hunter from West Cornwall — advocated for a controlled bear hunt. He argued that the population is “exploding” and that education and bear-proof containers are “a band-aid.” In keeping with DEEP’s rules, other residents did not respond, and the session took place without conflict.
Much of the remaining discussion centered on unsecured trash, short-term rentals, and outdated dumpsters at state parks that residents say train bears to expect human food. Some questioned why the listening session was not better publicized, and Ridgway echoed that concern, saying it should have also been held at the high school to allow more residents to attend.
DEEP collected comment cards at the end of the session. Staff said all feedback will be reviewed as the agency drafts its statewide bear management report.
