Risk Factors, page-58

After 27 business days of waiting for a response, I sent another email to the EPA and they came back with the below on 21 May.

i.e. it implies that they are still waiting on VRX to return the RTS.

-----

Thank you for your email.Following public review of the Arrowsmith North Silica Sand Project Environmental Review Document, the EPA received several submissions which were then sent to the proponent. The proponent is now required to adequately respond to these submissions, which may also require the provision of additional information; this is Stage 3, Step 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process as outlined in Figure 9 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Procedures Manual (EPA, October 2021). Upon receipt of information from the proponent, the EPA will undertake further assessment and then notify the proponent when the EPA considers the response to submissions is adequate to enable the EPA to prepare its draft assessment report.Please note that timeframes associated within the EIA process stages are generally administrative in nature and can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the project. Furthermore, the quality of the information provided to the EPA and the proponent’s ability to consider and comply with different policies can also impact on the timeframes in which process stages or steps can be delivered. The EPA’s Procedures Manual, available on the EPA website via this link EIA (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Procedures Manual_1.pdf (epa.wa.gov.au), provides an overall summary of the minimum target timeframes (Figure 18) and acknowledges that quality and complexity are key issues which may affect expected timeframes.Finally, generally speaking, where a party is concerned about a project’s deliverables, they are strongly encouraged to approach the proponent directly to discuss.Kind regards,EPA Services