People of California v. McWane (AB&I Foundry) — Hexavalent Chromium, Proposition 65

This is a primary legal filing: a civil complaint brought by the California Attorney General (Rob Bonta), in the name of the People of the State of California, against McWane, Inc. (doing business as AB&I Foundry) in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed 15 February 2022. It seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for the foundry’s emission of hexavalent chromium into the air of an East Oakland community without providing the warnings required by Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.). It is a public-record government enforcement action; the defendant is named here as the subject of that action, consistent with the Part 12 treatment of recalls and enforcement events, not as a contamination ranking.

Why this source matters to the index

The case is an instance of hexavalent chromium being actively litigated at the highest level of state enforcement — the Attorney General himself, not a private bounty-hunter. It is, however, an air-emissions / environmental exposure case (Cr-VI released from a metal foundry’s pipe-casting operations and inhaled by the surrounding community), not a food or dietary case. That distinction is the point: the Cr-VI species is named, listed, and litigated by the State, while the food application of the same enforcement machinery has not yet been filed — which is exactly the route-and-occurrence gap the chromium evidence base still carries. The source belongs to chromium-hexavalent as enforcement/leading-indicator context and must never be cited as evidence of Cr-VI in a food matrix.

Key facts alleged

• Defendant / facility: McWane, Inc. d/b/a AB&I Foundry, a cast-iron soil-pipe and fittings foundry in East Oakland (founded 1906; AB&I a McWane division since 2006). AB&I is alleged to be the largest emitter of hexavalent chromium in Alameda County and among the top ten emitters in the nine-county Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) region.
• Hazard framing (Prop 65 listings): OEHHA listed hexavalent-chromium compounds as a carcinogen on 27 February 1987 and as a developmental and male/female reproductive toxicant on 19 December 2008. The Prop 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for hexavalent chromium is 0.001 µg/day — described in the complaint as the second-lowest NSRL for any listed carcinogen, with only dioxin lower. The complaint states inhaled hexavalent chromium is a potent carcinogen, “5,000 times more potent than benzene.”
• Exposure / risk: A BAAQMD draft Health Risk Assessment (April 2021) identified a substantial cancer risk from AB&I of 22 in a million for residents, with hexavalent chromium the largest contributing toxic air contaminant; pipe-casting machines were stated to produce 1.17 lb/yr of Cr-VI emissions, molding 0.13 lb/yr, and the facility 1.41 lb/yr total, released through roof vents with no emission controls. Roughly ten schools sit within a mile; the surrounding community is low-income and majority Latinx and African American, and (per CalEnviroScreen 4.0) more pollution-burdened than 91% of the State.
• Causes of action: (1) Failure to Warn under Proposition 65 (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6); (2) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); (3) Harm to Natural Resources (Gov. Code § 12607). Remedies sought: civil penalties (up to $2,500 per violation per day), injunctive relief compelling Prop 65-compliant warnings, and attorneys’ fees.
• Procedural context: A private enforcer, Communities for a Better Environment, served a Prop 65 60-day notice on the defendants on 6 October 2021; the Attorney General then filed this action. A prior 1993 California action against AB&I concerned lead emissions and ended in a consent judgment requiring pollution controls and Prop 65 warnings.

Verification notes

Ingested 2026-06-03 from raw/Manual Fetch Kimi /June 3 Folder/ABI Complaint.pdf (sha256 710fd64b…), read in full (11 pages: caption, introduction, parties, jurisdiction, statutory background, facts, three causes of action, prayer for relief; signed by Deputy Attorney General Erin Ganahl, dated 15 February 2022). All figures above are as alleged in the complaint (a complaint states allegations, not adjudicated findings); evidence tier B reflects that this is a primary but unadjudicated legal filing. The case number is left blank in the filed copy.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.