"And even if they have, the EPA have a stated timeframe in which they must process the submission, and they don't want Ministers calling their boss if those time gates aren't met, so they tend to make sure it is hussled off thier desk on time"
Yeah, because we all know just how well the EPA have been sticking to their "stated timeframes in which they MUST process the submission"..
You're having a laugh, right? If not, please can you try and suggest to me why the Ministers haven't been phoning the EPA boss on the daily to question why Arrowsmith North's Response to Submissions document has taken more than the alleged 4 weeks from October 31st, and is coming up on 7 months?
"so they tend to make sure it is hussled off thier desk on time"
Hahahaha, yep, you're SURELY pulling all our legs with this one. 4 week timegate steps taking 7 months certainly translates to EPA consultants "hussling submission updates off their desk on time".
/s
Risk Factors, page-46
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 32 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
