 Today I am announcing we have sued Monsanto for creating, marketing, selling and distributing the toxic chemical substance known as PCBs. On Friday my office filed a case to protect, restore and clean up Vermont's natural resources and schools affected by PCB contamination. We know that Vermont's natural resources including surface waters and aquatic wildlife are contaminated with PCBs and we know that Lake Champlain is severely contaminated with PCBs. There are fish advisories for lake trout, smallmouth bass and yellow perch for Lake Champlain. The lawsuit also seeks to remedy PCB contamination in Vermont's schools. This Vermont is the first state in the nation to bring a case like this. I am using my authority of the Office of Attorney General to seek to recover for harms lunges schools traceable to PCB contamination. I want for Monters to know this could be a long fight and there are no guarantees with litigation but we are in it for the long call. I take very seriously my role of protecting Vermont and Vermonters. I want to thank the Agency of Natural Resources for their collaboration on this case and for their care of Vermont's environment. I would love to introduce everybody who is here today and then I will turn it over to Justin Colber who is our Chief of the Attorney General's Office's Environmental and Public Protection Division. So this is Justin. We also have the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, John Bealing. Next to the Commissioner we have our two summer associates who are students at Vermont Law School, Chase and Enoki. We also have the Director of our Environmental Unit, Laura Murphy and the Assistant Attorney General assigned to this case, David Galubac. So with that, Justin, why don't you say a few words getting into the details on the case. Thank you, General Clark. I'll provide some more of the legal details of the state's case. As General Clark explained, our case seeks two categories of harm. There are the natural resources harm to our soil and especially our waters, Lake Champlain as General Clark explained has fish advisories. The second category of harm is to Vermont schools and specifically the Vermont Legislature passed a statewide testing program that now includes 321 Vermont schools. All of those 321 schools are currently being tested for PCB contamination. All of those schools will be part of the state's case. So far almost 50 schools have been tested. The testing continues and we're seeing around 30% of the schools coming back with elevated levels of PCBs. At least 13 schools in our complaint are identified at having levels of PCBs that are concerning to the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Health. The concern around PCBs is that these are synthetic man-made chemicals. There are no naturally occurring sources of PCBs. They were created to mimic a very fatty lubricant type substance. So they've been used in all kinds of industrial materials over many, many years. They leach out into the environment and we know that the health effects of PCBs include things like thyroid, liver, immune system, reproductive issues and links to cancer. So for those harms in the state of Vermont, our complaint alleges that Monsanto is responsible for those harms. The story of Monsanto's conduct is quite clear. First, Monsanto knew about its toxic product in our complaint week site from Monsanto documents where Monsanto told its own employees, hey, don't eat lunch in the PCB manufacturing floor because our own medical director said, quote, we know PCBs are toxic. In 1969, a Monsanto manager called PCBs, quote, an uncontrollable pollutant. Second, Monsanto knew that the normal use of PCBs would lead to this widespread contamination. For example, in the 1960s, on average, one million pounds of PCBs were going into the nation's highway paints. And there's a Monsanto document that says, quote, through abrasion and leaching, we can assume nearly all of this PCBs winds up in the environment. Another Monsanto memo said, quote, there is no practical course of action to stop global environmental contamination of human food, particularly fish. Third, despite this knowledge from Monsanto, Monsanto outwardly deceives the public. They had conducted their own studies on construction materials that were used in schools. Monsanto knew the volatility of PCBs to break down. And they falsely called PCBs, quote, inert and non-volatile. Monsanto told its customers that PCBs were, quote, practically innocuous. Monsanto told New Jersey regulators that PCBs were, quote, not highly toxic. Why did Monsanto do this? Their own documents give a clear answer, quote, there is selfishly too much Monsanto profit to go out, and, quote, we can't afford to lose one dollar business. For this conduct, our legal claims against Monsanto are several. First, we're bringing nuisance claims that is interfering with the right of our monitors to use and enjoy Lake Champlain, to use and enjoy our schools. We brought product liability claims. That's for Monsanto knowingly putting out a defective product and not warning the public about it. We brought trespass claims, again, for putting PCBs into the Vermont environment in the state of Vermont. We brought negligence claims. And we brought a groundwater claim to protect Vermont's groundwater. The remedies we're seeking in this case, first, all damages and economic losses to our environment and our schools. Second, costs to investigate and test and fully assess Vermont's PCB contamination. Third, the cost to clean up and remediate. Fourth, our full litigation costs to prosecute this case. As General Clark mentioned, we are prepared for this to be a long case and we are prepared to fight it. And I believe we can take questions. So this is the first case of its kind in that we are seeking remedies for schools related to PCB contamination. For us, the legislature passed, I think it's Act 74 in 2021, which initiated the testing program that the Department of Environmental Conservation has been doing. So we're waiting for the test results, which we now have and enabled us to move ahead with this case. I wouldn't say to Vermonters, maybe I'm not alone here that went to one of these schools. Obviously, it's been repeated, it's going to be a long, it's not as a marathon here. What do you say they're going to be watching reading this tonight that they went to these schools, they worked in these schools? Well, the Department of Environmental Conservation is testing those schools and they will be in touch with communities as the testing. So yes, any school that has, so there's two levels to keep in mind. The Department of Health set what are called school action levels. Those are a little higher and those indicate that you need to address and remediate PCBs in those schools. There's a second category called immediate action levels, which are higher than those and they're by age base. There's pre-K, K through 6, and then 7 through 12. So any school above any of those action levels will be notified. It will be in the press, it's public records, it's on our website. So anybody who went to a school that tests above either of those levels will have that information available to them. The Department of Health is the expert in terms of what you should do in terms of seeking medical help. There's some FAQs on their website. So you should be able to figure out whether if you went to one of those schools or worked in one of those schools, what to do about it. It's 2020, there are other schools. I mean, we're not talking two or three schools in the state, we're talking hundreds. So why is this taking so long to get to this point? A regulatory perspective, General Clark mentioned that this is the first case of its kind in the nation. This is the first program of its kind in the nation. We're the first state to do this. So we're ahead of the curve. I mean, I'm not sure what's going to happen in other states. Probably they're going to look at what happens here and see what goes on. But this is the first time that a state has programmatically looked at indoor air contamination in schools. So we got wind of it around three years ago. Legislature passed statute. We started testing. It was a year ago this month that we started testing. So we've been moving forward with all the deliberate speed and we're going to get all those schools tested hopefully in the next two years. There are public, on our website, all the results. We notify the schools first, and then we make it public to the general public. But every school that's been notified, it's on our website. You'll be able to look there and see which schools have been identified as having action levels exceeded. Any other questions for the commissioner? Any other questions about the lawsuit? Yes. All of other states and states have already had settlements with Monsanto, but not related to the school issue. That's where this is normal here in Vermont. About a half dozen states have either brought a suit or settled with Monsanto so far, just on the environmental claims. Vermont is the first to view school claims. The claims were made based on natural resources, not on schools and other states. Well, like I said, I take my role of protecting Vermont and Vermonters very seriously. That's why we've taken the step to hold Monsanto accountable. And there may well be private lawsuits for individuals who do have their own medical harms and injuries. Our role will be to protect the public and have Monsanto be held responsible for all of the public health and harms and certainly any private injuries are available to those who have been directly affected. And I believe there is a private action by Burlington teachers right now that's pending. You talked about the long road. For the viewers to understand that, obviously you can't predict how a trial in case it's going to go. But I guess, where are we? Has this been filed? Is there some timeline to break that down? Sure. This is a civil lawsuit, so we filed on Friday in this court that we're standing in front of. And the next phase is the defendants get to file an answer. There might be motions practice. The discovery period will begin. Meanwhile, the testing program that the commissioner described is ongoing and we'll be getting more and more information about the impact of PCB contamination and the scope of it here in Vermont. And then discovery takes at... Usually it takes years. Ideally it would take months, but usually it takes years. And that's... You work your way in the process. There's lots of opportunities for mediation. And then you set a trial date. Most civil... Overwhelmingly most civil cases don't go to trial. But yeah, that's a lawsuit in a nutshell. Did I miss any highlights? I think that's it, yeah. Would you settle on this? Would I what? Would you settle? I would settle for reasonable terms. This is... The impacts of this are significant. And so any settlement would also need to be significant. And what would I want to go to? Looking XYZ years in the future. How long do you want to know this impact? Look, we don't necessarily know what a settlement or the outcome of a trial would be. But generally the legislature gets to decide how the money is spent in Vermont. So there could be... And we do this frequently. We'll structure a settlement so that there's other direct dollars going to someone. But generally there's the legislature. Is that how you see it? I think that's very... If there were specific damages to individual schools, we may be able to work to come up with those. But in general, you know, it's up to the legislature. All right, no more questions. Thanks for coming, everyone.