Because of the above, coupled with the high percentage of cohort badging during Operation CASTLE, and because such badging was used to provide doses for unbadged personnel,it is necessary to evaluate the procedures employed for cohort badging, including an examination of the apparentirregularities. This evaluation is further prompted by a post-operation recommendation from the CO of USS CURTISS (AV-4) concerning badging procedures at Operation CASTLE, that every individual be issued a film badge; otherwise, because of the varying location of menat different times, there is no way possible of assigning an accurate dosage figure to men without badges (Reference 16). The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the acceptability and validity for dose determination. It is necessary before utilizing the dosimetry data for comparisons with calculated doses. The analysis includes consideration of the following: a) Percentage of the crew represented by valid cohort badges. For example, the 42 badges issued for a crew of 279 personnel in USS SHEAfor the period 30 March-2 Mayreveals that 21 badges were listed as wet, missing, or lost. Personnel in these cohorts were apparently assigned doses of 200, 280, or 360 mrem. b) Unique exposures of a cohort consisting of personnel whose enlisted ratings imply involvement in documentedactivities not typical of the average crew member. For example, for a one-day badging period (30 April) for USS COCOPA,there is a cohort of one Boatswain's Mate Chief (badged) and nine seamen;the reading is 785 mrem. There is an individual badge for the Chief Warrant Boatswain with a reading of 240 mrem. The remainderof valid cohort and individual badges for this ship for the same periodare all less than or equal to 40 mrem. Itis likely that the two individuals were directly involved in recovering instruments for Project 1.4. However, because of the difference between the two high readings,it is not clear that the 785 mem readingis valid forall of the seamenin the cohort. Lacking further data, it is most prudent to assign the 785 mrem reading to these individuals but indicate that itis a high-sided assumption. C) Readings of a small group of individual badges that are much higher than the remainder of the crew, when the entire crew was badged and wherethe enlisted ratings indicate that it is likely that these individuals were involved in activities that would have resulted in such exposures. For example, there are nine individual badges for the USS RECLAIMER overthe period 28 April-3 May. These badges, with readings ranging from 760 to 2185 mrem, were assigned to several Boatswain's Mates, metalsmiths, a damage controlman and a seaman. This identifies them as the personnel directly involved in handling and/or securing contaminated mines and their doses are not comparedto those calculated for the typical crew. 90