Evaluating PFAS Risk in Educational Facilities: Managing Exposure, Compliance & Planning

Understanding PFAS Risks in Educational Facilities

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are not only a concern for facility managers, regulatory agencies, school districts, colleges, and universities.

Much of the national conversation has centered on drinking water, manufacturing facilities, military installations, and other known sources of PFAS releases. Educational facilities may not immediately come to mind, but schools and universities can have their own set of potential PFAS concerns.

A school campus includes classrooms, drinking water and wastewater systems, and, depending on its size and history, may also include science laboratories, maintenance shops, athletic fields, cafeterias, stormwater infrastructure, housing, healthcare facilities, and fire protection systems. Each of these areas may present different questions about PFAS use, storage, release, or exposure.

At the same time, educational institutions must protect students, faculty, staff, and visitors while working within limited budgets and often maintaining aging infrastructure. They may also face significant public concern when an environmental issue is identified, even before the extent of the risk is fully understood.

For educational institutions, early planning can help prioritize resources and inform decision-making. Understanding where PFAS may be present, how exposure could occur, and which actions are reasonable can help educational institutions respond thoughtfully rather than react under pressure.

A structured review should address potential PFAS sources, exposure pathways, monitoring needs, regulatory obligations, communication, and facility planning.

Evaluating PFAS Exposure Pathways on School & University Campuses

Educational facilities may encounter PFAS through several sources, some of which are easy to overlook.

Drinking water often receives the most attention, particularly at schools that operate private wells or are located near airports, military installations, landfills, industrial facilities, fire-training areas, or other potential PFAS sources.

Potential PFAS sources or pathways may include:

• Stain-resistant carpets, upholstery & textiles
• Certain building materials, coatings & sealants
• Food packaging & cafeteria waste
• Science, engineering & research laboratories
• Maintenance & vehicle service areas
• Biosolids applied to athletic fields or campus grounds
• Stormwater conveyances, retention ponds & drainage areas
• Solid waste handling & disposal practices
• Fire suppression systems known to contain PFAS

The presence of one of these activities does not automatically mean there is a PFAS problem. It simply identifies an area where additional questions may be appropriate.

For example, the existence of a fire suppression system does not necessarily indicate that aqueous film-forming foam was used or released. A laboratory may use fluorinated materials without creating a meaningful environmental pathway. A municipal water supply may already have an established PFAS monitoring and treatment program.

The goal is to distinguish credible concerns from lower-risk conditions so that limited resources can be directed where they are most effective.

For larger university campuses, this evaluation can become more complex. Universities may operate much like small cities, with their own utilities, housing, dining facilities, research buildings, vehicle fleets, medical operations, athletic complexes, construction programs, and waste systems. A campus-wide PFAS review may therefore require coordination across several departments rather than being handled solely as a water-quality issue.

Drinking Water Systems & PFAS Monitoring

Drinking water is often the first place educational institutions begin their PFAS evaluations. Water is one of the most direct and easily understood exposure pathways, and PFAS detections can quickly raise questions among parents, employees, students, and the surrounding community.

Schools and universities that operate their own drinking water systems should understand:

• The source of their drinking water
• Whether the system has been sampled for PFAS
• Which PFAS compounds were included in the analysis
• Whether the laboratory methods & reporting limits were appropriate
• How results compare with applicable federal & state requirements
• Whether seasonal, operational, or source-water changes could affect results
• What response actions may be required if PFAS is detected

Facilities served by municipal water systems should also understand how their local utility is addressing PFAS. A school may not be responsible for operating or treating the water system, but administrators will likely still receive questions if PFAS is detected in the community supply.

Reviewing publicly available water-quality data can provide useful context. In some situations, confirmation sampling or sampling at the point where water enters the facility may also be appropriate.

PFAS sampling should be planned carefully. PFAS are used in many common products, and poor sampling practices can introduce cross-contamination or create uncertainty about the results. A clear sampling plan, appropriate quality-control procedures, and a qualified laboratory are critical to producing data that can support decisions.

Sampling can establish a baseline, confirm whether a potential concern exists, and help determine whether additional evaluation is warranted. However, institutions should also plan for how results will be explained before sampling begins.

Once results are available, technical accuracy matters, but so does communication. People want to know what was tested, what the numbers mean, whether the water is safe, what is being done, and when they will receive additional information. Waiting until results are received to develop those messages can make an already difficult situation harder.

Looking Beyond Drinking Water

Drinking water receives the greatest regulatory and public attention, but it may not be the only PFAS consideration for an educational facility.

The appropriate level of evaluation depends on the age, size, location, and history of the campus. A recently constructed elementary school connected to a municipal water system will have a different risk profile from a large research university with decades of laboratory operations, fire-training history, on-site utilities, and residential housing.

Older buildings may contain materials manufactured during periods when PFAS were more widely used. Maintenance areas may have handled specialized coatings, cleaners, lubricants, or fire-suppression products. Laboratories may use fluorinated chemicals or materials in research processes. Athletic fields may have received biosolids or other soil amendments. Stormwater systems may collect runoff from several potential source areas.

A broader PFAS risk assessment may include:

• Reviewing historical property & operational records
• Identifying potential PFAS use, storage, or release areas
• Evaluating nearby off-site PFAS sources
• Assessing drinking water sources & distribution systems
• Reviewing fire-protection & fire-training history
• Evaluating stormwater & wastewater systems
• Reviewing waste handling & disposal practices
• Assessing laboratory, maintenance & research operations
• Evaluating past biosolids or soil amendment applications
• Reviewing renovation, demolition & construction considerations
• Identifying potentially applicable federal, state & local requirements

This does not mean every carpet, laboratory, drain, or athletic field needs to be sampled.

A defensible PFAS assessment should narrow the focus, not expand it unnecessarily. It should identify reasonable exposure pathways, document areas that are unlikely to present significant risk, and provide a basis for prioritizing the next steps.

Building a Practical PFAS Compliance & Risk Management Strategy

PFAS compliance obligations may arise under federal, state, and local requirements that vary by facility type, location, and operations. Depending on the facility and location, PFAS may intersect with drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, waste disposal, release reporting, remediation, procurement, and consumer product requirements.

Federal requirements continue to develop, while individual states may establish their own drinking water values, reporting requirements, cleanup standards, sampling programs, and product restrictions. Local water and wastewater utilities may also impose operational or discharge requirements.

As a result, two educational institutions with similar facilities may have different obligations simply because they are located in different states or receive water and wastewater services from different providers.

Educational institutions also tend to manage multiple facility types under one organization. A university may include:

• Academic & administrative buildings
• Student housing
• Childcare or K-12 educational programs
• Research laboratories
• Medical or veterinary facilities
• Central utility plants
• Dining & food-service operations
• Maintenance & fleet facilities
• Athletic fields & recreation centers
• Construction & capital improvement programs

Each area may have different PFAS considerations, responsible departments, recordkeeping systems, and regulatory requirements.

An effective compliance review should identify which requirements apply and who within the organization is responsible for managing them. Without clear ownership, PFAS-related activities can become fragmented across environmental health and safety (EHS), facilities, utilities, procurement, communications, risk management, and campus leadership.

Four Elements of a Practical PFAS Risk Management Strategy

The most effective PFAS strategies are proactive and proportional. A school or university should not assume that every potential source requires immediate sampling, removal, or treatment.

A practical strategy focuses on four areas.

Risk Identification
The first step is understanding where PFAS could reasonably be present and whether there is a pathway for people or the environment to be exposed.

This may involve reviewing records, interviewing facility personnel, evaluating surrounding land uses, inspecting selected areas, and developing a preliminary conceptual site model.

The goal is to identify credible concerns and eliminate unsupported assumptions.

Regulatory Readiness
PFAS requirements are changing quickly and may affect different parts of an institution at different times.

Regulatory readiness includes tracking the requirements that apply to the facility, understanding upcoming deadlines, maintaining useful records, and identifying operational changes that may be needed. It also means knowing which activities are not currently regulated but could create future obligations or liabilities.

Communication Planning
PFAS is technically complex, and technical language can create more confusion than clarity.

Institutions should be prepared to explain:

• Why an evaluation or sampling program is being conducted
• What was tested & where
• What the results mean
• Which standards or guidance values apply
• Whether any immediate action is necessary
• What additional steps are planned
• Where students, parents, employees & community members can ask questions

Communication should be accurate and transparent without creating unnecessary alarm. That balance is easier to achieve when messaging is developed before an urgent situation occurs.

Informed Decision-Making
PFAS planning should be connected to the institution’s broader priorities.

For example, the replacement of a water system, renovation of an older building, removal of a fire-suppression system, redevelopment of a maintenance area, or upgrade of a wastewater system may provide an opportunity to address PFAS concerns as part of planned capital work.

Looking at PFAS in isolation can lead to unnecessary expense or missed opportunities. Integrating PFAS considerations into capital planning, procurement, asset management, emergency response, and environmental programs helps institutions align PFAS actions with budgets, project schedules, and existing programs.

Using Early PFAS Assessments to Improve Facility Planning

Waiting for every regulatory question to be resolved may seem reasonable for institutions facing limited budgets and many competing priorities. However, waiting can also reduce flexibility.

An early PFAS assessment does not have to involve a major investigation. It may begin with a focused review of available records, water-quality data, historical operations, potential source areas, and applicable requirements.

That initial information can help an institution:

• Identify issues that may require near-term action
• Avoid unnecessary sampling or spending
• Plan future water or infrastructure improvements
• Develop realistic budgets
• Prepare for changes in regulatory requirements
• Improve recordkeeping & institutional knowledge
• Respond more confidently to stakeholder questions
• Incorporate PFAS into construction, demolition & property decisions
• Reduce the likelihood of being caught off guard

Early planning also gives institutions time to evaluate options. When a PFAS concern is identified during an emergency, regulatory inspection, construction project, property transaction, or public inquiry, the institution may have fewer choices and less time to make decisions.

Understanding current conditions does not solve every PFAS issue, but it provides the foundation for a more thoughtful and cost-effective strategy.

Questions Educational Institutions Should Ask About PFAS

School districts, colleges, and universities can begin by asking a few practical questions:

• Where does our drinking water come from? Has it been tested for PFAS?
• Do we operate private wells or our own public water system?
• Are there known PFAS sources near the campus?
• Has firefighting foam ever been stored, used, tested, or released on the property?
• Does the campus have a history of fire training, industrial research, or specialized laboratory work?
• Have biosolids or other soil amendments been applied to campus grounds?
• Do we understand how PFAS requirements differ in our state?
• Which department is responsible for PFAS-related decisions?
• How would we communicate with parents, students, employees & the public if PFAS were detected?
• Are upcoming construction or infrastructure projects likely to disturb areas with potential PFAS concerns?
• Do our procurement & waste management practices account for changing PFAS restrictions?
• Do we have enough reliable information to make these decisions?

The answers can help determine whether the institution needs a more detailed assessment, targeted sampling, updated procedures, or better documentation.

How APTIM Helps Educational Facilities Manage PFAS Risk

Educational institutions must protect their communities, maintain aging facilities, meet environmental requirements, and use limited funding responsibly.

A measured PFAS risk management approach should reflect the facility’s history, operations, potential exposure pathways, regulatory setting, and priorities.

APTIM works with schools, universities, and public-sector organizations on PFAS investigations, drinking water evaluations, sampling strategies, risk assessments, regulatory reviews, treatment evaluations, environmental compliance programs, and planning.

Our team combines facility history, sampling data, applicable regulatory requirements, and capital planning considerations to help clients identify potential PFAS risks, evaluate applicable regulatory requirements, develop practical management strategies, and support environmental planning.

Connect with APTIM’s PFAS team to evaluate potential exposure pathways, review applicable requirements, and prioritize sampling, treatment, and facility-planning decisions.

PFAS Remediation & Technical Solutions

Published July 2026