Waste giant Bingo claims it had an “understanding” with the Environment Protection Authority which allowed it to accept five times as much waste as it was licenced for, at one of its plants last year.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But the claim will not be able to be tested until the parties face off in court.
The giant waste and recycling firm, which has been expanding into the Illawarra, gave the explanation to shareholders after the EPA announced it was prosecuting Bingo for accepting 160,000 tonnes in 2016-17 – when it was licenced to receive just 30,000.
A spokesman for the company said the “understanding” with the EPA was that its bid to expand to accept 220,000 tonnes of waste would soon be approved – and it could continue to perform in excess of its licence in the meantime.
Bingo said the EPA gave the nod to this arrangement, saying “the prior agreement with the EPA on the facility avoided the need for court proceedings”.
“Bingo had been operating above capacity at Minto on the understanding that a State Significant Development application would be approved and had been in ongoing dialogue with the EPA in this regard,” Bingo told the ASX.
A Bingo spokesman confirmed the company’s position is that the understanding was between it and the EPA, which was “aware of the situation at all times”.
If such an “understanding” existed, it would be an extraordinary departure from the EPA’s role of licence monitor and regulator.
But the EPA’s policy of not commenting on court matters means Bingo’s claim will not be tested until the proceedings commence.
The Mercury asked the EPA several times whether there was such an “understanding”, but the agency declined to comment on the grounds the matter involved court action.
It is unclear how Bingo would know last year that its application was to be approved, when it has still not cleared the Planning Department’s assessment processes.
It drew objections from several neighbours, including a food wholesaler, a joinery, an engineering firm, and Origin Energy, which made a strongly worded submission outlining its concerns about traffic, dust and air quality, stormwater runoff and asbestos management.
