Brockman 4 Mine · Tom Price WA · 22 May 2026
C. MORRISON: Alright, commencing recording. This is a CADDS Group site walkthrough transcript, AI Site Rep capture. Location is Brockman 4 Mine, Secondary Crusher Building, Area 3. Date is twenty-second of May 2026, time is zero seven thirty AWST. I’m C. Morrison, CADDS Group site representative. Primary client contact on site today is S. Patterson, Rio Tinto Iron Ore, Maintenance Superintendent. S. Patterson, can you confirm you’re aware this walkthrough is being recorded for the purposes of generating the scope documentation package?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, confirmed. Happy to proceed. We’ve been waiting on this scope for a while so let’s make the most of it.
C. MORRISON: Appreciated. Session reference will be AFS-2026-0522-BC4-001. Before we go in — standard opening. S. Patterson, can you brief me on current site status? Any active permits in Area 3, hazards I need to be aware of, anything that’s changed since the pre-visit email?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, sure. So the crusher itself — this is Crusher 3 — it’s currently in service. The plant is running. We’re not going anywhere near the crusher itself, the work area for this scope is the north face of the secondary crusher building, at the plus six-five level, and the access corridor on the east side. No confined space, no hot work in this area. There is a working-at-heights permit active on the conveyor structure to the south but that’s a separate crew, not relevant to our area. Main hazard today is overhead equipment — the crusher building has overhead cranes, they are operational, so we keep clear of any lifts. And the minus one level below us has process material moving through conveyors so we watch the floor penetrations.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Crusher 3 in service, observation-only walkthrough, overhead crane operational — maintain clear zones during any lifts. Floor penetrations at minus one level — noted. PPE. I’m wearing hard hat, safety glasses, steel caps, hi-vis, and I’ve got a harness on as a precaution given the elevation work we’ll be looking at. S. Patterson, same?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, same kit. My H&S reference for this area is SWP-BC4-STR-007, if you need it for your document.
C. MORRISON: Good, I’ll capture that — Safe Work Procedure reference SWP-BC4-STR-007. Alright, let’s move in. S. Patterson, lead the way to the area we discussed.
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, so we’re going up these stairs here. This stair’s existing, it services the plus three-five landing and then up to plus six-five. The area we’re looking at for the platform — it’s at the top, on the north face. About half a level above where the main walkway is now.
C. MORRISON: Right. So for the record, ascending the existing stairway, steel grating treads, handrails both sides, looks like it’s hot dipped galvanised, appears to be in reasonable condition. I can see some paint degradation at the weld zones but the structural members look sound. Stair width is — stepping back to look — approximately 800 millimetres between the handrails. I’ll note that because it’ll matter for access requirements to any new platform we’re detailing.
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, that stair’s been there since original construction. 800mm is correct, it’s tight. That’s actually one of the reasons we need a better access arrangement at the top — you can’t get equipment up there easily. Even a grease gun trolley is a squeeze.
C. MORRISON: Noted. Access constraint for maintenance equipment a driver for the new platform scope. Continuing upward. Passing the plus three-five landing — I can see the landing handrail on the east side is — there’s a section missing. Between the intermediate post and the end connection, there’s a handrail rail missing. I’ll flag that. It’s out of scope for today but it’s a safety item that someone should be aware of.
S. PATTERSON: Oh, yeah. That’s been there — flagged it three months ago. It’s in the maintenance queue. The area’s marked with tape.
C. MORRISON: I can see the barricade tape, yes. For the record: handrail defect at plus three-five landing east side, barricaded, reportedly in maintenance queue. Out of scope but documented. Continuing upward. Alright, we’re at the top of the stair, plus six-five level. S. Patterson, this is the area?
S. PATTERSON: This is it. So what you’re looking at — you can see the existing steelwork on the north face. Those 350 UBs running vertically — they’re the main columns from the original building structure. They’re at — what would you say, 3.6 metre centres?
C. MORRISON: Let me have a look. Stepping out to get a clear view. I can see two vertical 350UB columns, one on the left and one on the right of the area we’re assessing. Stepping it out — roughly 3.6 to 3.8 metre centres, I’d say 3.6 looking at it, but I want to get a tape on that before it goes into any document. S. Patterson, do you have access to the original structural drawings?
S. PATTERSON: We should. The civil and structural set for the original building is in the RTIO document management system. I can pull the drawing numbers for you. The original design was done — late nineties, I think, maybe 2000. Old Hatch drawings. They’ll have the column schedule.
C. MORRISON: Good. I’ll need those originals before detailed design can proceed. Specifically: column size confirmation, existing base plate details, and the design load for the floor system at plus six-five, because we’re proposing to hang a monorail from the structure and I need to know what the existing structure can carry before we start speccing up the runway beam. That’s a hold item. I’ll note it. S. Patterson, who’s the contact for the drawing register?
S. PATTERSON: That’d be D. Cheng, she’s the asset data coordinator at Tom Price. I’ll get you her contact details. She can pull the drawing numbers and arrange access through the DMS.
C. MORRISON: Noted. Contact for structural drawings: D. Cheng, asset data coordinator, Tom Price. Outstanding action item. Alright, let me get oriented to the physical space. So I’m standing at the top of the stair, facing north. The two 350UB columns frame the area where the new platform is proposed. Between those two columns, there is — at the moment there is nothing. It’s open. There’s a floor edge — I can see a toe board at the edge there, looks like it’s temporary? And below that, looking down, there’s — that’s equipment below. What’s down there?
S. PATTERSON: That’s the crusher feed conveyor and the vibrating screen. So that level below is operating plant. Nothing goes below that toe board without a permit and a lot of planning. The platform we want is here, where we’re standing, and it fills in this gap between the two columns — six metres in the east-west direction and approximately four metres north-south, from the column face back toward the building skin.
C. MORRISON: Good. Platform dimensions proposed: six metres east-west, four metres north-south. That’s 24 square metres of new platform area. Level: plus 6500 millimetres. I’ll note those as the nominal scope dimensions — they’ll need to be confirmed against the structural drawings and checked against the column spacing when we get the drawings. S. Patterson, what’s the platform being used for? I need to understand the functional loading and maintenance activities so we can size the grating and the structure properly.
S. PATTERSON: So the primary function is maintenance access to the crusher discharge chute — it’s above us here, on the north face, at approximately plus eight. The liner replacement team currently has no safe working platform at this level, so when they need to replace chute liners — and that happens every six to eight weeks at this location — they’re working off ladders or they’re rigging a hanging scaffold every time. It’s time-consuming and it’s a risk profile that the site doesn’t want to carry anymore.
S. PATTERSON: The second function is the monorail. The chute liners weigh approximately 80 to 120 kilograms each, and there are six in the discharge chute. Currently they’re manhandling them up the stair or using the overhead crane, but the overhead crane can’t reach into this corner — the building steelwork gets in the way. So we want a dedicated 250 kilogram SWL monorail from somewhere near the top of the stair to a position directly below the chute access opening, so the maintenance team can hook a liner up and run it out.
C. MORRISON: Understood. So the scope I’m capturing is: new access platform, plus 6500, six by four metres nominally, with full AS 1657 compliant handrailing. And separately a 250 kilogram SWL monorail runway integrated with or above the new platform, routing from approximately the top of the existing stair to a position below the chute access. The monorail is a separate structural element and will need its own load path design. I want to be clear on that — the monorail loads cannot just be hung off the platform framing without a separate structural check. S. Patterson, is the 250 kilogram SWL a confirmed figure or is that an estimate?
S. PATTERSON: That’s confirmed. 250 kilograms is the design SWL. It’s in the maintenance procedure — I can dig it out. The liners themselves max at 120 kilos, so 250 gives you the rated factor of safety.
C. MORRISON: Good. 250 kilogram SWL confirmed by client. I’ll note the source document as the maintenance procedure — S. Patterson to provide document reference. That’ll be a reference for the structural engineer when they do the monorail runway design.
● Photo captured — P-001 — Overview of secondary crusher building Area 3, north face, 350UB columns framing proposed platform area [07:39:44]C. MORRISON: Photo P-001 captured. I’ve got a wide frame showing both 350UB columns, the existing stair top landing on the left, the open platform void between the columns, and the building skin on the north face. The plus 6500 level is where I’m standing, so the photo gives a reasonable sense of scale. Good. Alright, I want to walk the proposed walkway route. S. Patterson, you mentioned an east-side access corridor. Can you show me?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, so from the new platform, the intent is to add a walkway running east along the north face of the building, so the maintenance crew can reach the crusher feed chutes on both Crusher 2 and Crusher 3 from a single elevated corridor. At the moment they have to come down, walk around, and go back up — which is about a 15 to 20 minute round trip if there’s any congestion at ground level. The proposed walkway connects this platform to the existing platform over at Crusher 2, which is already at plus six-five.
C. MORRISON: Right, so the walkway is a connecting corridor at elevation, linking the new Crusher 3 platform back to the existing Crusher 2 platform. What’s the approximate span? Let me pace it out.
S. PATTERSON: It’s roughly 18 metres. There’s a — hang on, I’ll show you — there’s an obstruction about two-thirds of the way along. There’s a low-level pipe bundle running across the path. You can see it up ahead there.
C. MORRISON: I can see it. Moving east along the proposed walkway route. The floor level here is concrete, appears to be the original building floor. So the walkway framing will need to sit on top of this concrete floor and rise up to meet the plus 6500 level. Or — actually, we’re already at plus 6500, this floor we’re walking on — let me confirm. S. Patterson, is the existing concrete floor we’re walking on now at plus 6500?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, roughly. It’s the main operating floor at this level. The platform we’re proposing fills in the void between the columns, so it’s continuous with the existing floor at this level. The walkway eastward is a raised walkway — it’s above existing equipment, so it’ll be at plus 6500 even though the floor below it might be at plus three-five or so in sections. So yes, it’s all at the same datum, plus 6500, but it’s a suspended walkway structure in the east section.
C. MORRISON: Got it. So the walkway for the east section is a suspended structure — it will have its own supporting framework coming down to the building floor. That’s a meaningful structural scope — I want to note that clearly in the document because suspended walkways over live equipment require a fair bit of engineering work. The support framework needs to avoid existing equipment, existing services, and it needs to be constructable without shutting the crusher down. S. Patterson, is it safe to assume that construction needs to be done in planned shutdowns?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah. The crusher building can’t be fully isolated for this — it’s not practical. The preference is to stage it. The platform at Crusher 3 can go in during the Q3 shutdown, which is ten days. The walkway — we’re thinking it can be done in shorter windows, maybe two times two days over the following maintenance cycles. But that depends on how the construction sequence pans out. That’s something we’d need CADDS to advise on during design.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Staged construction approach. Q3 shutdown for the Crusher 3 platform — ten-day window — and shorter maintenance windows for the walkway sections. CADDS to advise on construction staging as part of the design deliverables. I’ll note that requirement. Now, let me look at this obstruction you mentioned. Coming up to it now — there’s a low-level pipe bundle running — which direction is this running?
S. PATTERSON: North-south. It’s running north-south across the walkway route. It’s process pipework — slurry lines. Can’t be relocated, can’t be put into a shutdown, they’re tied into the main process.
C. MORRISON: For the record — slurry pipework obstruction on the proposed walkway route, running north-south at approximately two thirds of the way along the 18-metre run. How much clearance is there above the top of that pipe bundle?
S. PATTERSON: Not much. I’d say 400 to 500 millimetres at the moment from the top of the pipe bundle up to the structural steelwork above. So the walkway can’t just run straight through — either the walkway steps over it, or it steps under and then back up. Steps over is the preferred option, but it means a change in floor level on the walkway. We’d want steps, not a ramp, given the confined space.
C. MORRISON: Right. So the walkway route will incorporate a step-over feature at this pipe bundle, with steps up and over rather than a level through-route. AS 1657 step height requirements will apply. I’ll need to confirm the actual height of the pipe bundle above the walking surface and the available headroom under the overhead steelwork to determine if a step-over is achievable within the code requirements. That’s a survey item — C. Morrison to arrange dimension survey at this obstruction. Adding that to the outstanding actions. S. Patterson, do you know the nominal pipe diameters in that bundle?
S. PATTERSON: I’d say — they’re a mix, there’s three pipes. One looks like four inch, one six inch, and I think the third is eight inch. But I could be off. The piping isometrics would have it. Again, that’s a DMS item — D. Cheng can pull those too.
C. MORRISON: Noted. Pipe sizes at obstruction: approximately 4-inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch — to be confirmed from piping isometrics, contact D. Cheng. Right, let me take a photo of this obstruction and the route.
● Photo captured — P-002 — Looking east along proposed walkway route, slurry pipe bundle obstruction in mid-ground [07:45:51]C. MORRISON: Photo P-002 captured. Looking east along the walkway route, the slurry pipe bundle obstruction is clear in frame at approximately two thirds along the route. You can see the headroom issue — the structural beam above is visible, and the gap between that beam and the pipe bundle is visually tight. I’ve also captured the existing Crusher 2 platform in the background, which shows the termination point. Good reference. Alright, S. Patterson, let’s go back to the platform area and talk about the handrailing and grating specification.
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, so on the grating — site standard at Brockman 4 is 25 millimetre open bar grating for all new access platforms and walkways. Same spec as what’s been used on the Crusher 1 and Crusher 2 platforms. Galvanised — hot dip galvanised for the structural elements, handrails, and grating frames. RTIO has a site standard for that — I’ll get you the document number.
C. MORRISON: Good. Grating specification: 25 millimetre open bar grating, hot dipped galvanised. Site standard to apply — S. Patterson to provide document reference. Handrailing — AS 1657?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, AS 1657. All new handrailing to be AS 1657 compliant. Top rail at 900 millimetres, mid rail at 450, toe board minimum 100 millimetres. That’s the site minimum, same as the standard.
C. MORRISON: Confirmed. Handrailing to AS 1657-2018, top rail 900mm, mid rail 450mm, toe board 100mm minimum. All three sides of the platform — including the inboard side, I assume? Because that’s sometimes left open to the building structure.
S. PATTERSON: All four sides. Full perimeter. The building skin is the north face but we still want a handrail there because the skin isn’t structural and people lean on things. Full perimeter handrail.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Full perimeter handrailing, AS 1657, all four sides. Noted. Now, I want to talk about the monorail because that’s a different beast. S. Patterson, can you walk me through the desired operating envelope? I want to understand the runway beam length and the lift zone.
S. PATTERSON: Right. So the monorail needs to run from — I’d say from about here, where the stair terminates onto the platform, because that’s where the crew bring the liners up from below. They come up the stair carrying the liner on a sling, hook it onto the monorail at this end, and run it along the beam to the lift zone, which is directly below the chute access hatch. That hatch is — I’d say it’s four metres north from this stair position and about two metres up from the platform level. So you need the beam end at the lift zone to be in that region, and you want the hoist to go up high enough to get the liner into the chute.
C. MORRISON: Alright. So the runway beam runs from approximately the stair termination point, four metres north toward the building face, at a level above the plus 6500 platform. The hoist lift height needs to be sufficient to reach the chute access hatch, which you’re estimating is roughly two metres above the platform level. So the hoist at its high point needs to be at approximately plus 8500 or so, and the monorail runway beam would be above that. Let me note this as nominal — exact lift geometry to be confirmed by structural engineer during detailed design. Can I ask: what hook coverage is needed along the beam? Can the liner be connected at any point along the runway, or does it need to reach specific positions?
S. PATTERSON: It needs to reach the top of the stair and it needs to reach directly below that chute hatch. Those are the two critical positions. Full traversal coverage between those two points isn’t strictly required but it’s nice to have.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Two critical hook positions: stair termination end, and directly below chute access hatch. Full traversal between the two is preferred but not mandatory. I’ll note both positions as must-cover for the runway beam design. What hoist type? Manual chain block? Electric chain hoist?
S. PATTERSON: Manual is the preferred option, actually. Electric adds complexity, adds a power supply requirement, and this is not a high-frequency operation. The maintenance team is comfortable with a manual chain block. 250 kilogram SWL chain block on a trolley, the trolley running on the beam.
C. MORRISON: Good. Manual chain block, 250 kilogram SWL, on a trolley. Monorail beam to be sized for that rated load plus the self-weight of the trolley and hoist. I’ll note also that the beam-to-building structure connection needs to be designed for the eccentric loading — the monorail load will be a point load hanging below the beam and it will create a moment in the connection to the building frame. That’s a structural design item that needs to go to a registered structural engineer for sign-off. Is RTIO expecting CADDS to provide the structural engineering design, or does RTIO engage their own structural engineer?
S. PATTERSON: CADDS provides the full package — design, structural calcs, drawings. RTIO reviews and approves. We’d expect the structural calcs to be signed by a chartered structural engineer, registered in WA.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Full design package from CADDS, structural calculations signed by a RPEQ/CPEng structural engineer registered in WA. I’ll note that as a deliverable requirement. Now, S. Patterson, there was something you mentioned in the pre-visit email about a cage demolition. Can you walk me through that?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, so there’s a — come over here with me. There’s an existing cage access arrangement on the east side. It’s an old cage ladder access, goes up from the plus three level to the plus six-five. It was the original access method before the stair was put in. It hasn’t been used for years. RTIO wants it removed. It’s redundant, it’s deteriorating, and it’s taking up space that the new walkway framing needs to go through.
C. MORRISON: Right. So there’s an existing cage ladder assembly — going from plus three-five up to plus six-five on the east side — that is redundant and is to be demolished as part of this scope. And the demolition is required because the new walkway framing physically conflicts with the cage ladder position?
S. PATTERSON: Correct. And honestly, even if it didn’t conflict, it’d need to go. It’s been taken out of service and it needs to be formally decommissioned and removed, not just left there.
C. MORRISON: Understood. Cage ladder demolition included in scope. I want to capture the physical details. Moving over to look at this cage ladder. It’s — it’s a vertical caged ladder, I can see the cage rings are — they’re painted steel, the paint is significantly degraded, there’s surface corrosion on the cage rings and on the ladder stiles. The structure looks intact but it’s clearly been out of service for some time. Is there any documented decommissioning status for this? Has it been formally taken out of service?
S. PATTERSON: It was taken out of service when the stair was commissioned, about 2018. There should be a change management record for that. I’ll need to find it.
C. MORRISON: Good. I’ll note: cage ladder decommissioning records to be located — S. Patterson to provide. This will be needed for the demolition design package to confirm that no operational permits or maintenance requirements remain attached to this structure. Also: any asbestos-containing materials assessment? In a building of this age, there could be legacy materials around the penetrations.
S. PATTERSON: That’s a good point. There should be an asbestos register for the building. I’d want that checked before any demolition work starts. The cage ladder itself is structural steel, shouldn’t be an issue, but the surrounding area around the penetration — if there’s any legacy lagging or insulation board at the penetration, that’s something to check.
C. MORRISON: Agreed. Outstanding action: asbestos register check for the Area 3 north face and east side corridor prior to demolition scope finalisation. S. Patterson to arrange or confirm who holds the asbestos register at Brockman 4.
S. PATTERSON: That’ll be the site H&S coordinator, L. Bourke. She holds the hazardous materials register.
C. MORRISON: Noted. L. Bourke, H&S coordinator, Brockman 4, for asbestos register. Adding to the outstanding actions list. That’s going to be four items now including the structural drawings, the pipe sizing, and the shutdown window confirmation. Alright. I need to check on the damaged grating panel. You mentioned that in the email too, S. Patterson — where is that?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, it’s back near the top of the stair. So on the existing floor at plus six-five, there’s one grating panel that’s been damaged. It’s been barricaded — let me show you.
C. MORRISON: Moving back toward the stair. I can see the barricade — it’s a standard yellow plastic barrier chain around a section of floor grating near the stair top landing. I can see the grating from here. The panel is — it’s been impacted from above. I can see the bar grating is deformed, one of the bearing bars is fractured, and there’s a portion of the grating panel that’s not flat — it’s bowing downward under its own weight. That’s a load-carrying failure. How long has this been barricaded?
S. PATTERSON: About six weeks. It got hit by something during a crane lift — an accessory bag dropped onto it. The panel needs replacing, it’s on the shutdown list, but it keeps getting bumped. Given we’re doing a platform scope here anyway, we thought it made sense to include the grating panel replacement in the same shutdown.
C. MORRISON: That’s a sensible approach. Panel replacement should be straightforward — remove the damaged panel, install a matching replacement to the same 25mm open bar grating specification. I want to get the panel dimensions before we close out. Let me see. I’m standing at the barricade edge looking at the panel. It looks like a standard panel, I can see the frame. Width looks like — I’d say 600 by 1200 millimetres but I want to tape that. S. Patterson, have you got measurements of this panel on record?
S. PATTERSON: I don’t. It should match the site standard modular size — either 600 by 1200 or 750 by 1200. The exact size will be visible on the grating frame when we get the replacement order together.
C. MORRISON: Noted. Grating panel replacement dimensions to be confirmed on site prior to procurement. Add that as an action. This is a relatively minor item — it’s included in the scope for convenience but I want to call it out separately in the document so it’s clearly listed as an add-on to the main scope, not a structural item. The main scope is the platform, walkway, handrailing, and monorail. The grating panel replacement is a distinct but concurrent task.
● Photo captured — P-003 — Damaged grating panel at plus 6500, barricaded, fractured bearing bar visible [07:56:47]C. MORRISON: Photo P-003 captured. I’ve got the barricade chain in frame, the damaged panel, and the fractured bearing bar visible on the right side of the panel. The downward bow in the panel is visible if you look at the shadow line. I’ve also captured the surrounding floor grating to give context for the panel position relative to the stair. Good documentation shot. At this point J. Walsh is joining us — J. Walsh, can you confirm your name and role for the transcript?
J. WALSH: Yeah, J. Walsh, maintenance supervisor. Just checking in — didn’t want to interrupt. I just wanted to make sure you’d captured the surface finish requirement for the new grating and handrails. We’ve had problems before where a contractor delivered a powder-coated item instead of HDG and we had to reject it. So just want that on record.
C. MORRISON: Appreciate that, J. Walsh. For the record — surface finish requirement for all new structural steel, grating, and handrail components: hot dipped galvanised. No powder coat substitution. HDG to Australian Standard AS 4680. I’ll make sure that goes clearly into the scope specification and into the drawings notes so there’s no ambiguity at procurement. Is there a specific minimum coating thickness required under the RTIO site standard?
J. WALSH: The site standard says 85 microns minimum average on structural steel. For grating it’s the same — you just need to check the grating supplier can meet it on the bar grating. Some of the lightweight grating can be marginal.
C. MORRISON: Good. I’ll note: HDG minimum 85 microns average, AS 4680, for all structural steel and grating. Supplier to confirm grating product meets specification prior to procurement. Thank you J. Walsh. Anything else before you head off?
J. WALSH: No, that’s the main one. The monorail — I just want to make sure the hoist end stops are positive, not just screw stops. They need to be welded or bolted end stops. I’ve seen trolleys come off the end of a beam before and it’s not good.
C. MORRISON: Noted. Monorail runway beam: positive end stops at both ends, welded or bolted — not friction or screw adjustable. To be called out in the design package. Good safety note. Thanks J. Walsh.
J. WALSH: Righto. I’ll let you get on with it.
[J. Walsh departs at 07:58:55. C. Morrison and S. Patterson continue.]
C. MORRISON: Alright, S. Patterson. I want to run through the outstanding items for the record before we close out. Capture everything in one place. First: structural drawings for the existing building. 350UB column schedule, base plate details, plus six-five floor system design loads. Contact D. Cheng, asset data coordinator. Hold item — detailed design cannot proceed until we have this information.
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, I’ll chase D. Cheng first thing when I’m back in the office today.
C. MORRISON: Good. Second: piping isometrics for the slurry pipe bundle obstruction on the walkway route. Pipe sizes to be confirmed. Same contact, D. Cheng. Third: asbestos register check for the demolition area. Contact L. Bourke, H&S coordinator. To be completed before demolition scope is finalised. Fourth: RTIO site standard document for HDG and grating specification. S. Patterson to provide the document number. Fifth: cage ladder decommissioning records — S. Patterson to locate and provide. And sixth: maintenance procedure document confirming 250 kilogram SWL for the monorail, S. Patterson to provide document reference.
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, I can get most of those across this week. The drawings might take a day or two — D. Cheng sometimes has to go through a formal DMS request for the originals. But I’ll push her on it.
C. MORRISON: Understood. I’ll note: outstanding information package expected within the week. CADDS design cannot commence until items 1 and 3 at minimum are resolved — the structural drawings and the asbestos register check are the critical path items. Everything else can be progressed in parallel. S. Patterson, one last thing before I close the recording — for our records, can you confirm that the scope I’ve described today aligns with RTIO’s intent? That is: new 6m by 4m access platform at plus 6500 between the 350UB columns on the north face; 18-metre suspended walkway connecting to the existing Crusher 2 platform; AS 1657 handrailing full perimeter, HDG, 25mm bar grating; 250 kilogram SWL manual chain block monorail; demolition of existing redundant cage ladder; and replacement of one damaged grating panel at plus 6500 near the stair landing. Is that a fair summary?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, that’s correct. That covers everything we discussed. I’d add that the walkway step-over at the pipe bundle obstruction needs to be designed to AS 1657 requirements — you captured that — and I want to make sure the design allows for tool and equipment access along the walkway. We need to be able to get a grease gun trolley and hand tools along that walkway to the Crusher 3 platform. So minimum clear width on the walkway needs to be sufficient for that. I’d say 900 millimetres minimum clear width between handrail inside faces.
C. MORRISON: Captured. Minimum walkway clear width 900 millimetres between inside faces of handrails, to accommodate maintenance equipment access including grease gun trolleys. That’s actually in line with AS 1657 minimum requirements for maintenance platforms so it should be achievable. I’ll call it out explicitly in the scope document as a functional requirement, not just a code requirement, so the intent is clear. Alright. That concludes the formal walkthrough. S. Patterson, I appreciate your time and the thoroughness of the briefing. CADDS will prepare a scope document summarising today’s capture and we’ll transmit that to RTIO for review within three business days of receiving the structural drawings. Sound reasonable?
S. PATTERSON: Yeah, that works. Looking forward to getting this one moving — the maintenance team has been waiting on this access improvement for a while. It’s one of those jobs that’s straightforward in concept but it keeps sliding because the scope wasn’t properly documented. Hopefully this process fixes that.
C. MORRISON: That’s exactly what this process is for. Alright, closing the recording. Session AFS-2026-0522-BC4-001, end time zero eight zero three AWST, twenty-second of May 2026. C. Morrison, CADDS Group.