Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu OREX

Author Topic: OREX  (Read 54212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 4
  • Karma: 3387
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: OREX
« Reply #25 on: Aug 03, 2005, 12:20 »
Ray, the scrubs are the ones that are made to look like the hospital scrubs.  They are NOT comfortable and they wear rapidly.  They are meant to be a modesty garment, so they are not as durable as the coveralls.  Unfortunately, a lot of people wear them as work clothes outside contaminated areas.  IMHO, this is extremely wasteful - not just of materials but the manpower it takes to restock and dispose of them.  Then, there's the hygiene problem.  At shift change, you have to wade through a foot-deep pile of sweaty Orex scrubs in the locker room because everybody on site wore a pair and overflowed the bins.  It would be understandable if more than 10% of those people had actually entered a CA that day.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #26 on: Aug 03, 2005, 02:37 »
Orex has some good products, but I’m in agreement with Jess Jen and Beer Court, the orex scrubs aren’t worth a nickel. For our SGR in fall of 2006 we will still be using cotton modesties. Some things just don’t need changing!

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #27 on: Aug 04, 2005, 07:31 »
Thank you all for clearing this up (scrubs vs. coveralls and super coveralls.  I thought that the complainers were complaining about all OREX products. 

I guess most people send their used ones to Alabama or for holding in Pennsylvania for dissolving.  Did anyone buy or design their own dissolving system?  Now I see why some of the posters were talking about super-compacting vs dissolving of the good OREX PCs.  The shipping costs could be prohibitive for shipping C-Vans full of uncompacted waste for dissolving vs. just sending super-compacted waste directly to the waste site.  This study should be done.  I don't know if I have time to go that far.  Time will tell.  I will look at it some and repost if a light bulb lights up. 

Offline azkidd

  • RP Tech (Housemouse)
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 135
  • Gender: Male
  • We Nationalize Banks!!
Re: OREX
« Reply #28 on: Aug 05, 2005, 12:11 »
Ray,
You need to contact Rich Bensen @ 601-437-2450.  He will give you a complete breakdown on cost benefits, for purchase, as well as disposal.  Entergy South is using OREX PC's, and Grand Gulf is also using OREX Scrubs.  Very beneficial.

Offline fueldryer

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 981
  • Gender: Male
  • Call Before You Dig !
Re: OREX
« Reply #29 on: Aug 06, 2005, 09:37 »
We used the Orex pc's at Ft. Calhoun with great results.Disassembled the reactor with few if any contamination events.Even doing ICI flanges inside the shroud.I think the only place we didn't use them was in the lower cavity,(the water was about a foot deep).Didn't care for the hoods tho.
Call Before You Dig!

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #30 on: Aug 07, 2005, 11:01 »
Quote
It would be understandable if more than 10% of those people had actually entered a CA that day.

Got it Beer Court.  It is interesting about the opinions of this product.  I used only the hoods before but everyone seems to not like the hoods.  They did not bother me.  Hmmmm!

I will spend more time on this and research it more.  The cost analysis and comfort level will be the bottom line.

My next step is to get a few samples for the Nuke Workers here on-site and to wear them myself and see what we all think.

I'll repost in a few weeks if I make that happen.  I'll also post my cost analysis, if I have time.

Offline Piggyback Beta

Re: OREX
« Reply #31 on: Aug 10, 2005, 10:08 »
All right, this subject finally made a long time reader post!  I have worn both ProTech and Orex.  I found the ProTech more comfortable as the material seemed to breath more than the Orex.  I prefer the Orex because of the single use and the lack of protective clothing PCE's.  After reading some of the posts, I have to question how well cotton provides protection against tritium vs the nonwoven Orex.  I did find probems with the "butt blowout" when wearing Orex but unless you are straddling a pipe it doesn't seem to be too much of problem.  I did find my safety glasses to steam up more when wearing the Orex.  But essentially no PCEs!  I did find it aggravating to find strange blue fibers stuck to the seat of the car!  My preference is the Orex scrubs, Orex PC's (reinforced if VERY rough work), and Protechs as the outer for doubles.  I too dislike the hoods, as the seemed to be too large and stayed in one position on your head.  When you turned your neck, you're looking at the side of the hood. 

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 4
  • Karma: 3387
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: OREX
« Reply #32 on: Aug 10, 2005, 10:30 »
Nobody ever said that cotton protects against Tritium.  The original post was from a Canadian, who got a sales pitch from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.  He told our Canadian friend that Orex could replace PC's.  That may be true here, but CANDU plants are cooled and moderated by heavy water.  Therefore their outer PC's are frequently super-heavy-duty reusable bubble suits.  They do wear cotton coveralls under the suits, but OREX coveralls would not work in this application.
In areas where there is no Tritium, they wear Tyvek as outer PC's.  Tyveks are also worn over the bubble suits where contamination is high (protects the bubble suit from having to be trashed).  Orex could be used in these applications, but it is an expensive switch for a country that has no rad waste disposal problem.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline einsteinium

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: OREX - Single-Use and Launderable
« Reply #33 on: Oct 05, 2005, 02:54 »
I'm a little late in my contribution to this discussion, but here's my two cents.

First off, good dialogue from some clearly astute folks. There seems to be no doubt as to the usefulness of single-use garments, at least for routine entries.

Based on opinions within the industry these days, the biggest justification for single-use is the minimization of PCEs. The mindset has become that because used launderable garments have fixed contamination, they are a suspect cause of PCEs. Indeed, I remember the hot particle issues that cropped up as a tech back in the 80s and PCs were a source for PCEs.

BUT, that was before sophisticated automated laundry monitoring was the norm. We had laundry techs frisking laundry with RM-14s, and we all know how useless that was. The fact is, any legitimate launderable program these days will preclude a PCE event from clothing. And despite the popularity of single-use products, there are plenty of launderable clothing programs around the country that have no problem whatsoever.

So what’s the real reason? Is it comfort? Convenience? Protection? Cost?

The results on comfort are mixed. Lots of people like PVA, papers, tri-lams etc., and lots of people don’t. One thing that isn’t often addressed is fit. I’ve never worn a single-use that didn’t pull in one place and end up way too loose in another. The fact is that $3.00 isn’t going to get you much in terms of tailoring or fit.

There’s no denying the convenience of single-use, especially in pulling used PCs out of a work area. They are definitely lighter. But sorting still has to happen as long as rubber items are used, so processing, etc. doesn’t really improve much.

Protection is a two-edged argument. Some folks will point to launderables as a PCE source and thus the basis for less protection. I refuted that above. But the real protection issue is textile barrier and garment strength. PVA does pretty well in particulate barrier for a single-use material (there’s good info at http://nuclearissuesforum.org/test_results.html ) but contentions by the manufacturer that it’s better than anything else are plainly false. To me, the big protection issue is strength, since a torn garment in the RCZ is a definite invitation for a serious PCE. The test link compares strength measures. Launderable garments prevail, but since OREX has held up pretty well for many facilities in routine use, it’s probably safe to say that it's adequate for light entries where wetness isn't a possibility.

Cost seems to be the big misnomer. All the single-use manufacturers imply that their garments are cheaper than launderable. But it’s goofy to think that launderable PCs that last 50 or more washes could be more expensive per use than a single use program. UniTech, the big offsite laundry service, says that the average 30,000 use outage is going to cost something like $75,000 more using OREX instead of launderable. This isn’t necessarily too much more money if the garments have identical features, but they don’t. In any case, there’s no reasonable debate on cost.

IMO, single use has a place in a typical utility RP program. But I’d never be totally comfortable covering a hot or arduous job with guys wearing single-use. It’s hard enough to keep their gloves off their faces without worrying about an elbow or crotch blowout.

ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #34 on: Oct 06, 2005, 11:30 »
Single use has some draw backs, but if your interested in reducing your PCE count there the way to go. Here at Watts Bar we contribute 36 percent of our PCE's to launderable garments.

Offline PWHoppe

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 819
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 2024
  • Gender: Male
  • CONFIRMED!: The dumbest man on the planet
Re: OREX
« Reply #35 on: Oct 06, 2005, 01:02 »
Single use has some draw backs, but if your interested in reducing your PCE count there the way to go. Here at Watts Bar we contribute 36 percent of our PCE's to launderable garments.

Who does your laundry? That seems like an awfully large amount of PCE's to be coming from the laundry. It is sometimes easier to just blame the garment than to find the actual source of the contamination, whether it is poor worker practice, or poor controls. That is not to say it ISN'T the laundry but I have seen where the garment takes the hit instead of a more through and time consuming investigation.
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days will it take a grasshopper with a rubber foot to kick a hole in a tin can?

Forum rules..http://www.nukeworker.co

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #36 on: Oct 10, 2005, 11:27 »
36% seems rather high for PCs. On the other hand if that is only 2 or 3 during the year thats not to bad. Are they segregating properly? (no shoe covers in with cloth?) If detergents are used there should be little to no PCEs from washed clothing.
If only high temp water cleaning is used- good luck.  There are no secrets to washing PCs to rid them of contamination-hospitals have been doing it for years. -detergent (of some sort), hot water, appropriate cycles, and proper segregation and frisking. cotton comes cleaner than synthetics... etc.

Sweating does have its problems if the PCEs are from hot environment work. If thats the issue, then the frisking threshold for clean/reject needs to be lowered.

Jr8black3

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #37 on: Oct 10, 2005, 12:24 »
Work Practices, and training, Pat Hoppe touched on that. You cannot put inexperienced people in a bad area and expect a good outcome.

I just finished a job that the work conditions were horrible, working in nothing but papers with 200mr/hr gamma smears. We completed our project with zero percons. I chalk that up to good work practices.

ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #38 on: Oct 12, 2005, 10:42 »
36 percent is high, our limit on reuse is higher than the industry average, but with Orex we should reduce our PCE’s significantly.

Offline einsteinium

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: OREX
« Reply #39 on: Oct 19, 2005, 12:26 »
I'm blown away that Jr8black3 believes sending people into a 200 mr/hr gamma smearable environment with papers is a good work practice. Unless they are tiptoeing through the area in slow motion, it's ludicrous to think that this is a risk-free PPE prescription.

The fact of the matter is that single-use manufacturing quality control is, at best, minimal. I see open seams and thin spots in these materials all the time. A garment failure in a highly contaminated environment could quickly result in a serious percon, to say nothing of a radiation area entry that has to be aborted and repeated.

Single-use has application for many types of entries, but certainly not the scenario described by Jr8black3. The reliability, strength, and economics of launderable PCs make them the only sensible choice for arduous, high hazard work.
« Last Edit: Oct 19, 2005, 12:34 by einsteinium »

Offline PWHoppe

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 819
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 2024
  • Gender: Male
  • CONFIRMED!: The dumbest man on the planet
Re: OREX
« Reply #40 on: Oct 19, 2005, 03:11 »
I don't think that Jrblack3 was making the statement that the papers were a good work practice. I believe that he is commenting that even though they were working in conditions one would normally work in wearing launderable PC's by utilizing good work practices, his crew was able to avoid PCE's. I'm not trying to speak for him but that was what I got from his posting, and frankly I agree with him. While it is not desiriable to use single use garments for such high contamination levels the ability of the workers to avoid problems is a testament to their skill as radiation workers. This shows that sometimes it is who is doing the job not the equipment that makes the difference between success and failure. I know that if anyone could've pulled this off, Kevin could have.  ;)
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days will it take a grasshopper with a rubber foot to kick a hole in a tin can?

Forum rules..http://www.nukeworker.co

Offline einsteinium

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: OREX
« Reply #41 on: Oct 21, 2005, 03:30 »
Point taken, PWHoppe. I didn't intend to be abrasive in my post. But the premise of many posts in this thread for going to single-use has been the notion that launderable causes PCEs and should be replaced by a theoretically equivalent single-use program.

I challenge any claim that a legitimate laundry monitoring program could let garment PCE problems slip by. And I still contend that prescribing single-use for high contamination areas or for arduous work activities is risky, regardless of a worker's radiation worker skills.

It’s my opinion that the single-use vendors have propagated many of these misconceptions and presented their PPE as a panacea. I expect that economics and common sense will prevail in the long run.

Jr8black3

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #42 on: Oct 21, 2005, 07:22 »
Einsteinium,
1. We didn't have a choice, we had to wear what was provided
2.Without the great training and work experience provided to me by people like Pat Hoppe and many others over the years, there is no way it could have happened.
3.When I seen what they expected us to wear, I said WTF, you have to be kidding me
4.Thank god my comapany finally seen the light and pulled out after phase one.
5. We completed our part
6. I feel sorry for the sorry people that have to do Phase 2 in a 100-300 r/hr GA

Offline einsteinium

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: OREX
« Reply #43 on: Oct 25, 2005, 05:59 »
Jr8black3:

I hear you brother. Phew! It astounds me that utility management will fall over themselves to avoid a 3k/dpm laundry PCE and let this kind of thing happen. I guess it keeps the geeks in corporate content with busy work, but misses any sort of attempt at common sense. Anyway, sorry I missed your original point.

Be careful out there.


ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #44 on: Oct 26, 2005, 08:48 »
100 to 300R/hr, where are you working at, Chernobyl?

Offline PWHoppe

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 819
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 2024
  • Gender: Male
  • CONFIRMED!: The dumbest man on the planet
Re: OREX
« Reply #45 on: Oct 26, 2005, 11:12 »
I challenge any claim that a legitimate laundry monitoring program could let garment PCE problems slip by.

I too share this opinion and believe that while disposables have their place they in NO way are a subsitute for a good laundurable garment. Jr8black3 got forced into a situation that nobody should have to be in and made the best of it. I have seen this all too often with management trying to cut corners and the end result is usually bad. It only turns out ok when you have exceptional radiation workers. BTW I didn't think you were being abrasive, I felt you were expressing your disdain for the single use PPE fad that seems to running rampant in the industry which I happen to share. I will now leap from my soap box ;)
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days will it take a grasshopper with a rubber foot to kick a hole in a tin can?

Forum rules..http://www.nukeworker.co

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #46 on: Nov 10, 2005, 12:10 »
Holy cow, this topic is still going!  Wow!  I have been away for awhile.  We had a firestorm here:

http://www.raymcginnis.net/firephotos.aspx   

We still have not decided on Orex here.   I still hear comments from people who like them or dislike them through email or phone.  We still use Tyveks here.  Orex may be better, but it is hard to change things sometimes.

I like all of the opinions though.  We can't use reusables anymore.  We are really clean here now. The laundry comes back hotter than what we send them, all of the time, for 10 years.  We need disposables for our job.

Worker protection and comfort was my main goal in starting this thread.  Wow, have I learned a lot from all of these posts!  Thanks to all for sharing.

ageoldtech

  • Guest
Re: OREX
« Reply #47 on: Nov 15, 2005, 04:12 »
Uniteh has a craddle to grave product, full disposable PVA, gloves, shoe covers etc. for under $10 per dressout.
www.unitech.ws

Offline PWHoppe

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 819
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 2024
  • Gender: Male
  • CONFIRMED!: The dumbest man on the planet
Re: OREX
« Reply #48 on: Nov 15, 2005, 07:47 »
Unitech has a cradle to grave product, full disposable PVA, gloves, shoe covers etc. for under $10 per dressout.
www.unitech.ws

These things provide GREAT bang for the buck ;)
« Last Edit: Nov 15, 2005, 07:48 by PWHoppe »
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days will it take a grasshopper with a rubber foot to kick a hole in a tin can?

Forum rules..http://www.nukeworker.co

Offline Meltdown

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 71
  • Gender: Male
  • Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?             $upporting Member
Re: OREX
« Reply #49 on: Nov 28, 2007, 01:52 »
I know this is an old thread, but I was wondering if anyone else is having issues with workers devloping rashes attributed to Orex. ???
Meltdown

"I know that there is an eye that watches all of us. There is a judgment that weighs everything we do. And before this great force, which is greater than any government, I stand in awe and I kneel in respect." L. Cohen

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?