In a significant development, the imminent release of a pivotal study on cancer incidences linked to tainted water at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune is anticipated later this month, as revealed by the U.S. Justice Department. A recent submission in court documents by attorneys representing individuals claiming harm from the contaminated water disclosed their withdrawal from the legal pursuit for study access. This decision followed the announcement by the Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that the study’s release is underway and expected by the end of January.
While a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed the impending release, further comments were withheld. As of Thursday, representatives for the ATSDR had not responded to inquiries seeking additional information.
Leadership in the extensive litigation, comprising over 1,400 lawsuits, emphasized the pivotal role of the forthcoming study in the legal proceedings. Expressing concerns over potential delays, they signaled relief at the assurance of its imminent release.
Earlier in November, an epidemiologist engaged in the study revealed to Reuters that elevated cancer rates were identified in both service members and civilians residing at Camp Lejeune. The study further pinpointed additional established cases of cancer linked to the contaminated water source.
Allegations in the lawsuits and nearly 160,000 administrative claims filed with the U.S. Navy assert that the water at the Jacksonville, North Carolina base resulted in cancer and other health complications for residents and workers. President Joe Biden’s signing of the Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act in August 2022 initiated a process for addressing claims related to Camp Lejeune.
Acknowledging the impact of chemicals in the water between 1953 and 1987, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated potential effects on up to one million individuals.
In a December legal maneuver, attorneys appointed to lead the plaintiffs sought a court order compelling the government to release the study. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Jones Jr. rejected the motion, citing the ongoing peer review process and invoking protections for “predecisional” government materials. Although an appeal had been filed against this ruling, the revelation of the impending study release led to its withdrawal, as stated in the Wednesday court filing.
