Kentile Asbestos Flooring: What the Brooklyn Records Reveal

← Back to Featured Investigations

In June 1978, Kentile told distributors that its Vinyl Asbestos Tile would be renamed Reinforced Vinyl Tile. The memorandum describes a change in product designation, not a change in the tile formulation. That distinction matters to anyone examining old flooring cartons, product records or a building's renovation history. [1]

A name change that did not mean asbestos was gone

On June 5, 1978, Kentile Floors notified distributors that the name “Vinyl Asbestos Tile” would be replaced by “Reinforced Vinyl Tile.” The company said the revised name would appear on cartons, samples and sales materials as they were updated. Crucially, the memorandum said the new designation would apply to its vinyl-asbestos patterns and would be phased into cartons and sales materials over time. A box labeled “Reinforced Vinyl Tile” therefore cannot be assumed asbestos-free simply because the word “asbestos” is missing. [1]

A Brooklyn purchasing record from 1977

A December 21, 1977 supplier call report identifies Kentile Floors at 58 Second Avenue in Brooklyn and names Andrew Kennedy as its director of purchasing. The visit concerned a 1978 pricing schedule for tile-grade asbestos and anticipated purchases. This is evidence of a commercial discussion, not a shipment ledger, proof of a particular volume purchased, or proof that one supplier's material entered any identified batch of flooring. [2]

What the supplier records say about handling asbestos

A separate Union Carbide supplier report records Kentile placing its first order for a carload of specially packaged Calidria asbestos for the Brooklyn plant. According to the report, some Brooklyn production batches called for about 35, 50 or 70 pounds of asbestos, requiring larger bags to be opened before the material was added. The supplier described 50-pound bags as a way to reduce material handling and asbestos dust. The report also describes a planned transfer through the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal because the plant lacked a railroad siding. This is evidence of an order and a proposed delivery arrangement, not independent confirmation that the carload arrived or that its material entered any identified flooring batch. [2b]

What federal investigators measured at the plant

NIOSH investigated working conditions at Kentile's Brooklyn facility during visits in July, September and October 1978. Its November 1979 report describes air sampling, workplace observations and medical review. Three of 30 asbestos air samples—0.11, 0.11 and 0.12 fibers per cubic centimeter—exceeded the 0.10 fibers/cc OSHA recommended criterion identified in the CDC archive summary. The report describes a plant employing approximately 370 workers and recommends improvements including exhaust ventilation, protective equipment and cleaning work clothes worn by employees exposed to asbestos. Those measurements concern sampled plant conditions in 1978. They are not measurements of an installed floor, a household environment, or any particular person's lifetime exposure. [3]

Which historical products can be identified?

The February 13, 1990 Federal Register notice (55 FR 5144, Kentile entry) lists Kentile Floors and identifies resilient flooring, including tile and sheet goods, with reported manufacturing years of 1907 through 1986. It describes Kentile Asphalt Tile as using asbestos filler and KenFlex Vinyl Asbestos Tile as a blend of vinyl and asbestos fibers. Product names, dimensions, packaging and pattern descriptions can help narrow an investigation, but visual appearance or tile size alone does not establish composition. [4]

The end of Kentile asbestos-containing production

In an August 17, 1989 submission to an EPA information clearinghouse, Kentile stated that it manufactured asbestos-containing flooring from 1907 to 1986 and supplied copies of product patterns and designs. That is a manufacturer statement about the historical production period. It does not prove that every product made throughout those years contained asbestos; nor does it establish the manufacture date or content of a floor encountered later. [5]

How to investigate an older Kentile floor

A useful inquiry begins with the building address, installation or renovation dates, any retained cartons or invoices, product names, photographs, and the work actually performed. Historical catalogs and company records can then be compared with available product-identification evidence. Where asbestos content must be determined for building management or disturbance, a qualified professional should assess sampling and safe handling; do not sand, grind or break suspect flooring to investigate it. [4], [6]

What the records establish—and what they do not

Read together, the documents establish a documented asbestos-related product line, a 1977 supplier pricing discussion and a separately documented carload order, a 1978 product-name change, workplace sampling in 1978, and a manufacturer-reported end date in 1986. They do not establish a complete supplier market share, a chain of custody for any particular tile, an individual's dose, medical causation, or legal liability. Those questions require their own evidence. This is why a historical investigation must connect the records without treating them as interchangeable.

Worked at Kentile in Brooklyn? What information can help reconstruct the history

The records offer concrete questions to investigate, not a conclusion about any worker. Start with the approximate years of employment, department, job duties and the location of the work. If you remember receiving or opening bags, operating mixers or hoppers, maintaining equipment, cleaning production areas or working nearby, describe the activity in your own words. NIOSH's 1978 evaluation and the supplier handling report provide historical context against which those recollections can be examined. [2b] [3]

Employment records, union information, photographs, coworkers' names and old product or packaging records may help establish dates and circumstances. A supplier record alone does not identify what any particular worker handled. Likewise, the existence of asbestos-containing Kentile products does not establish that any particular floor contained asbestos or that an individual was exposed.

Installed or removed older Kentile flooring?

The useful starting point is different for flooring installed elsewhere: identify the building, approximate installation or removal dates, any packaging or invoices, the tile or sheet product name, and whether the work involved cutting, sanding, removal or other disturbance. The 1978 naming memorandum and federal product-identification record can help interpret historical labels, but neither can substitute for evidence about a particular building or product. [1] [4]

Why this matters to mesothelioma investigations

Mesothelioma diagnoses may occur decades after an alleged asbestos exposure. The challenge is often reconstructing which products were present, when they were installed or disturbed, and what work someone performed. The Kentile record offers concrete starting points for that reconstruction, while preserving the distinction between historical manufacturing facts and evidence about an individual.

Original documents and official sources

Bracketed numbers above refer to the following sources. The records establish historical facts, not the circumstances of any particular exposure.

1. [1] Kentile Floors distributor memorandum, June 5, 1978 (ToxicDocs)
2. [2] Union Carbide supplier call report, December 21, 1977 (PDF page 81)
3. [2b] Union Carbide Brooklyn supplier report documenting a carload order, packaging and handling (PDF pages 83–84)
4. [3] NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation HE 78-71-633, Brooklyn (1979)
5. [4] Federal Register, February 13, 1990, 55 FR 5144, Kentile entry at page 5152 (EPA-hosted reproduction)
6. [5] Kentile Floors letter, August 17, 1989, reporting asbestos-containing flooring manufacture from 1907 to 1986 (historical document)
7. [6] EPA guidance on floor tile and mastic

Research and legal-information notice: Historical documents do not establish exposure, causation or liability in any individual matter. General information only, not legal advice. Editorial standards.

Explore the asbestos flooring and adhesives guide · Product investigation guide

About this investigation: This article draws on the historical records, scientific materials, and legal sources identified below. It distinguishes documented findings from interpretations and unresolved questions. Historical evidence concerning a product or workplace does not, by itself, establish an individual's asbestos exposure or legal claim.

Explore historical asbestos research collections → · Mesothelioma News Desk →