Armstrong International | Steam Traps & Valve Components | Asbestos Exposure Reference

Company History

Armstrong International is an American manufacturer specializing in steam system products, with a product line that has historically centered on steam traps, valves, and fluid handling components used across heavy industrial settings. The company has operated for decades as a prominent supplier to industries that rely on steam and condensate management systems, including petrochemical refining, power generation, paper and pulp processing, and large-scale manufacturing.

Throughout much of the twentieth century, steam systems were central to industrial operations across the United States. Steam traps — mechanical devices designed to discharge condensate and non-condensable gases while retaining live steam — were critical components in virtually every plant that used steam for heating, processing, or power. Because these systems operated at high temperatures and pressures, insulating materials and internal sealing components in valves and traps were frequently manufactured with asbestos-containing materials during the mid-twentieth century. According to asbestos litigation records, Armstrong International’s steam trap and valve products were among those alleged to have contained asbestos-based components during the period spanning roughly the 1940s through the early 1980s.

Armstrong International is distinct from Armstrong World Industries, the flooring and ceiling tile manufacturer. Workers and attorneys researching exposure history should take care to identify the correct Armstrong entity when reviewing employment and procurement records.

Asbestos-Containing Products

According to asbestos litigation records, plaintiffs alleged that Armstrong International manufactured and distributed steam traps and associated valve components that contained asbestos during the mid-to-late twentieth century. Court filings document claims involving internal gaskets, packing materials, and sealing components within steam trap bodies and valve assemblies — areas where asbestos was commonly used during this era because of its heat resistance, compressibility, and ability to maintain a pressure-tight seal under thermal cycling.

Plaintiffs alleged that asbestos-containing materials were incorporated into:

  • Steam trap internal components: Gaskets and seat materials used inside steam trap bodies were frequently manufactured from compressed asbestos sheet or asbestos-reinforced composites. These components were subject to wear and required periodic replacement, generating asbestos-containing dust during removal and installation.
  • Valve packing: Braided asbestos packing was used in valve stems across industrial valve and trap assemblies to prevent steam and condensate leakage around moving parts. Court filings document claims that this packing material released respirable fibers when compressed, adjusted, or removed.
  • Body and cover gaskets: Flat ring gaskets sealing trap bodies to covers and flanges were alleged to have been manufactured from asbestos sheet materials. Workers who disassembled steam traps for maintenance, inspection, or replacement were directly exposed to these gaskets.
  • Insulating wraps and jackets: In some industrial configurations, steam trap and valve assemblies were fitted with insulating covers or pre-formed jackets to reduce heat loss. According to litigation records, plaintiffs alleged some of these insulating materials contained asbestos fibers.

Armstrong International is reported to have ceased the use of asbestos-containing materials in its products by approximately the early 1980s, consistent with broad industry trends following increased regulatory scrutiny from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and growing awareness of asbestos-related disease.

Occupational Exposure

Steam traps and valve components were installed throughout virtually every major American industrial facility built or operating between the 1940s and 1980s. According to asbestos litigation records, workers across a wide range of trades and job classifications were alleged to have been exposed to asbestos-containing materials associated with Armstrong International steam trap products.

Pipefitters and steamfitters were among the most directly exposed trade workers. Their work involved installing, maintaining, and replacing steam traps throughout plant piping systems. Removing a failed steam trap required breaking gasket seals — a process that could fracture compressed asbestos gasket material and release visible dust. Installing replacement gaskets often required cutting sheet asbestos to size or trimming pre-cut gaskets, both of which generated airborne fibers.

Industrial maintenance mechanics and millwrights regularly performed trap surveys and scheduled maintenance, particularly in refineries, chemical plants, and power stations where steam trap populations could number in the thousands. Court filings document claims by maintenance workers who alleged repeated, routine exposure over many years of employment.

Boilermakers and power plant operators worked in environments where steam trap failures were routine occurrences addressed during outages and turnarounds. These workers were frequently present when traps were removed, repacked, or replaced — work that plaintiffs alleged occurred in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces, concentrating airborne asbestos fiber levels.

Insulators and laggers were present at job sites where steam trap assemblies were insulated after installation or re-insulated following maintenance. To the extent that asbestos-containing insulating materials were applied over or around trap and valve bodies, insulators would have handled those materials directly.

Bystander exposure was also alleged in litigation records. Workers in adjacent trades — electricians, painters, laborers, and general plant workers — who were present in the same work areas when steam trap maintenance occurred were potentially exposed to asbestos dust without directly handling the components themselves.

The industries with the highest documented rates of steam trap use — and corresponding exposure potential — include:

  • Petroleum refining: Refineries relied on extensive steam distribution networks for process heating and tracing, with steam traps installed throughout.
  • Chemical and petrochemical manufacturing: Similar steam system configurations were standard in chemical plant design.
  • Pulp and paper mills: Steam was integral to the paper-making process, and trap maintenance was frequent.
  • Electric power generation: Both fossil fuel and nuclear generating stations used steam extensively, requiring large numbers of steam traps throughout their systems.
  • Shipbuilding and naval vessels: Steam-powered vessels and shore-based shipyard facilities employed steam traps throughout engineering spaces and support systems.
  • Steel and metals production: High-temperature industrial processes relied on steam distribution systems maintained with the types of components at issue in litigation.

Armstrong International falls under Tier 2 of asbestos litigation classification for purposes of this reference. The company has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury litigation. According to asbestos litigation records, plaintiffs have alleged that Armstrong International steam trap and valve products contained asbestos-based internal components and that exposure to those components caused or contributed to asbestos-related diseases including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer.

Court filings document claims brought by pipefitters, maintenance workers, and other industrial tradespeople who worked with or in proximity to Armstrong International steam trap products over the course of their careers. Plaintiffs alleged that the company knew or should have known of the hazards posed by asbestos-containing components and failed to adequately warn end users.

Armstrong International has not established an asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. As of the preparation of this reference article, the company has not undergone asbestos-related bankruptcy reorganization, and there is no Armstrong International-specific trust fund through which claims may be submitted. This distinguishes Armstrong International from manufacturers such as Owens Corning, W.R. Grace, or Armstrong World Industries, each of which established trust funds through Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings.

Workers and families researching asbestos exposure involving Armstrong International products should be aware that legal claims, if viable, would proceed through the civil litigation system rather than through a trust fund claims process. This distinction affects both the filing process and the timeline for potential resolution.

If you or a family member worked as a pipefitter, steamfitter, industrial mechanic, boilermaker, or in any trade that involved contact with steam trap systems between the 1940s and the early 1980s, Armstrong International products may be part of your exposure history.

Key points for workers and families:

  • Armstrong International has been named in asbestos personal injury litigation. According to litigation records, plaintiffs alleged that steam trap components including gaskets, valve packing, and sealing materials contained asbestos.
  • There is no Armstrong International asbestos trust fund. Claims involving this manufacturer, if pursued, would be filed as civil litigation rather than trust fund claims.
  • Many asbestos disease cases involve exposure to products from multiple manufacturers. An attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can help identify all potentially responsible parties, including those with active trust funds, which may affect overall recovery.
  • Diseases linked to asbestos exposure — including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and asbestos-related lung cancer — typically have long latency periods, meaning symptoms may appear decades after initial exposure. Statutes of limitations vary and generally begin running from the date of diagnosis or discovery of the disease, not the date of exposure.
  • Employment records, union records, Social Security earnings statements, and co-worker affidavits can all be used to document exposure to specific products at identified work sites.

Individuals seeking legal guidance should consult with an attorney who concentrates in asbestos-related personal injury claims and who can evaluate specific exposure circumstances, applicable filing deadlines, and available legal options on a national basis.