Tar Heel State Secures $590M from DuPont for PFAS – Why Everyone Should Pay Attention

Key Takeaways

• $590 million is North Carolina’s highest settlement for environmental damages, but it is not the highest settlement for such damages for PFAS issues nationally
• The settlement does not completely end DuPont’s liabilities stemming from its PFAS facility in North Carolina. Other significant cases remain pending with significant liability concerns for the company
• Using this settlement for predictive purposes to determine future settlements with other states on PFAS issues may be limited due to the facts at play

What Is DuPont Settling?

On September 10, 2026, the state of North Carolina announced a $590 million settlement with DuPont and a few of its spinoff entities. The settlement applies to the state and 11 communities in the vicinity of DuPont’s Fayetteville Works PFAS manufacturing facility. For over 50 years, the facility manufactured various PFAS and discharged effluent into the adjacent Cape fear River. North Carolina has previously pursued DuPont through enforcement action channels to achieve the high level goals of significantly reducing or eliminating PFAS discharges into the Cape Fear River and obtaining funding for PFAS remediation in communities along the Cape Fear River Basin that are impacted by PFAS stemming from the facility. The settlement adds to the already agreed upon $1.2 billion in funding that DuPont provided to the state in a prior 2019 Consent Order settlement.

The agreement provides $455 million to the state and to 11 local governments that joined in the settlement, to be paid over the next 10 to 15 years. Of that amount, $75 million will be allocated to the state with roughly $55 million going to an Emerging Contaminant Mitigation Fund, which supports efforts by local governments to detect and reduce contaminants in drinking water.

The remaining $380 million will be divided among the following local governments that were affected by Fayetteville Works’ pollution and previously sued Chemours and DuPont:

• Bladen County
• Brunswick County
• Columbus County
• Cumberland County
• New Hanover County
• Robeson County
• Sampson County
• Town of Wrightsville Beach
• City of Lumberton
• Village of Bald Head Island
• Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority

The deal also establishes a $135 million reserve fund from DuPont and sister company Corteva to guarantee the work that Chemours must continue to complete for decades into the future under the NC Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ) 2019 consent order.

Does This End DuPont’s PFAS Liabilities in North Carolina?

No, not be any means.

Various entities in North Carolina still have pending litigation against DuPont and its spinoff entities, including the state of North Carolina itself. The state has pending civil litigation proceeding through litigation against DuPont that seeks damages state-wide for PFAS contamination due to AFFF use within the state. In addition, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has litigation ongoing against DuPont and Chemours for additional funding to remediate in the area that the utility services (which is primarily Wilmington and an adjacent county). None of these matters are impacted by the $590 million settlement.

Finally, there is also pending a massive class action lawsuit pending brought by the citizens of the communities surrounding the Fayetteville Works facility seeking damages for land contamination and a medical monitoring program. In recent years, the Judge overseeing the case certified a class of over 100,000 citizens. The settlement this week and the prior Consent Order settlement do not curtail the rights of the citizens to seek separate damages through their lawsuit. The case is still pending.

Why Is This Settlement Important For Companies To Follow?

Financial world professionals often ask whether settlements like this one can be used as benchmarks for future PFAS contamination settlements. My response is always that while the settlement is informative, it would not be appropriate to use the settlement value as a broad-sweeping benchmark for all future PFAS contamination lawsuits. This is due primarily to the factual issues at play in North Carolina, where there was and is a PFAS manufacturing facility. There are numerous other states with litigation pending against PFAS manufacturers where the manufacturers had no PFAS manufacturing facility footprint. Thus, presumably, the PFAS contamination may be less severe, but in any event, even if the contamination mirrors that of the Cape Fear River Basin, the direct discharges did not emanate from PFAS manufacturers, but rather from industrial users. That is not to say that PFAS makers have no liability in those situations. However, there are viable factual and technical arguments to make for the notion that other companies may be in part responsible for the contamination other states are experiencing.

Nevertheless, a takeaway from this settlement for companies not in the chemical manufacturing space is that it is a stark reminder that companies are not only at risk for EPA enforcement action related to PFAS, or even civil litigation from citizens. These can and sometimes are coupled with state-level enforcement actions, municipality lawsuits, utility lawsuits, and individual (as opposed to class action) claims for personal injury. All of these must be taken into account in the PFAS risk formula when companies assess their own PFAS footprint and the risks stemming from the footprint.

CMBG³’s Perspective — What We Are Seeing

The DuPont settlement is one that is significant for the company to put the North Carolina Fayetteville Works issues behind them in part. However, it does not end the PFAS litigation picture for the company or its spinoffs by any means. Meanwhile, downstream users (whether intentional or not) of PFAS must be aware of the risks of multiple lawsuits, agency pursuits, and various municipalities and utilities litigation potentially impacting company bottom lines.
Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Does the DuPont settlement with North Carolina end the company’s liability within the state?
A. The settlement does not completely end DuPont’s liabilities stemming from its PFAS facility in North Carolina. Other significant cases remain pending with significant liability concerns for the company.

Q. Can analysts use this settlement as a benchmark for other future settlements?
A. Using this settlement for predictive purposes to determine future settlements with other states on PFAS issues may be limited due to the facts at play.

Q. Does the settlement provide lessons for downstream users of PFAS?
A. Yes. It is a stark reminder that companies are not only at risk for EPA enforcement action related to PFAS, or even civil litigation from citizens. These can and sometimes are coupled with state-level enforcement actions, municipality lawsuits, utility lawsuits, and individual (as opposed to class action) claims for personal injury. All of these must be taken into account in the PFAS risk formula when companies assess their own PFAS footprint and the risks stemming from the footprint.

About the Author

John P. Gardella  —  Shareholder, Chair of PFAS Practice

John has twenty years of environmental litigation and compliance experience and represents companies brought into PFAS litigation, looking for comprehensive PFAS risk assessments, and in need of PFAS compliance reporting. He was recognized by the National Law Review twice as the only national thought leader on PFAS. His opinions are sought by Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Bloomberg, AM Best, and numerous industry-specific publications.

Contact John Gardella  ·  CMBG³.com/pfas-litigation