Opinion ID: 1609412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADEM's Responsibility

Text: As the preceding discussion demonstrates, the obstacle to a resolution of this dispute is the absence in the rules or statutes of reviewable criteria governing the establishment of permitted volumes, when those criteria become necessary upon requests for volume modifications or for initial permits. In this connection, the trial court not only correctly held that the procedure used to calculate permitted volume in this case was arbitrary and capricious, but also correctly concluded that the permitted volume was established in violation of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 41-22-1 to -27. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act impose upon administrative agencies the dutypreliminary to the adoption, amendment, or repeal, § 41-22-5(a)(1), of rules of practice, § 41-22-4(a)(2)to publish the terms or substance of such rules, § 41-22-5(a)(1), and, among other things, to [a]fford all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. Section 41-22-5(a)(2). Noncompliance with these provisions voids every agency rule, order, or decision taken in any case in which the provisions are applicable. Section 41-22-4(b). Section 41-22-3(9) defines a rule as [e]ach agency regulation, standard or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, or that describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency. (Emphasis added.) This definition expressly excludes, however, [a]n order which is directed to a specifically named person or to a group of specifically named persons which does not constitute a general class. Section 41-22-3(9)e. Brunson contends that the process of calculating permitted volume is exempted from the procedural requirements to which agency rulemaking is generally subject, because, it insists, such agency action exemplifies the action described in § 41-22-3(9)e. In other words, it argues, ADEM's method of calculating permitted volume for individual landfills does not involve a standard or statement of general applicability.  Section 41-22-3(9) (emphasis added). We disagree with Brunson's interpretation of § 41-22-3(9)e. During the Honeycutt administration, at least, ADEM had a method for determining waste facilities' permitted volumes. That methodalbeit unwritten, informal, and confined pretty much within the mind of Jack Honeycutt [9] was used each time a landfill's permitted volume was established. Thus, the method used by ADEM has had, and will continue to have, general applicability. Indeed, our reason for rejecting the Kelly method, namely, that it was purely arbitrary, suggests that any method used by ADEM must, for rationality purposes, have general applicability to all waste facilities within the state. The fact that such a method may yield different results when applied in the circumstances unique to each facility does not bring it within the exception set forth in § 41-22-3(9)e. Because the [a]doption of rules describing the internal organization of an agency and the actual procedures and policies of a state agency will enable the public to hold agencies to the standards to which it is intended they be held, § 41-22-4, comments, we conclude that ADEM mustpursuant to §§ 41-22-4 through -7formally promulgate a rule or regulation articulating the factors or criteria that are to be considered in establishing permitted volumes for Alabama waste facilities in connection with volume modifications or initial permits. We do not presume to suggest a roster of specific factors to be included, nor do we preclude the use of factorsto the extent they are ascertainablethat were used by Jack Honeycutt. We note, however, that the legislature has provided some guidance in its statement of legislative intent prefatory to Act No. 89-824, 1989 Ala.Acts 1638, codified at Ala.Code 1975, §§ 22-27-40 to -49. In enacting legislation encouraging the development of solid waste management plans, the legislature intended, among other things: (4) To facilitate the siting of solid waste management facilities as required to meet present and projected state and local needs; . . . . (7) To assure public involvement in the development and implementation of plans for the management of solid wastes; . . . . (9) To assure that solid waste management facilities and services are provided to state residents in a manner which assures their availability at reasonable costs; and (10) To assure that the creation, licensing, and operation of landfill solid waste disposal facilities should be limited to what is reasonably required to service the needs of the inhabitants and businesses of this state, having regard for alternative technologies for waste reduction, management and disposal. Ala.Code 1975, § 22-27-42 (emphasis added). In summary, we have concluded (1) that the permitted volume established by the trial court was not supported by any evidence; (2) that ADEM, not the trial court, bears the responsibility of establishing Brunson's permitted volume; but (3) that ADEM, having failed to comply with the rule-promulgation provisions of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, has, at this time, no valid basis upon which to recalculate Brunson's permitted volume. We have also weighed these competing considerations in light of the amendments to Division Thirteen of the Alabama Administrative Code requiring that Brunson operate under an established permitted volume. Having balanced the equities between the two parties, we, therefore, modify the injunction by providing that it shall be dissolved as soon as ADEM promulgates a rule consistent with our discussion, and, pursuant to that rule, recalculates and reestablishes a permitted volume for Brunson. Review of the recalculated permitted volume shall then proceed in compliance with the procedures established by Ala.Code 1975, §§ 22-22A-6 and -7, for reviewing the administrative actions of ADEM. In other words, if the City of Prichard is dissatisfied with the recalculated permitted volume, it shall be entitled to challenge the agency's action in the context of the statutory provisions applicable to the review of actions of administrative agencies. Moreover, the recalculation ordered in this opinion will establish Brunson's permitted volume for the first time. See supra note 2. We, here, thus state that which is elsewhere implied, that a legally sufficient determination in establishing Brunson's permitted volume will not constitute a permit modification,  § 335-13-5-.05(1) (emphasis added), and, consequently, will not require approval by the affected unit of local government, as would otherwise be required by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-27-48(a). See supra note 4. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ALMON, SHORES, HOUSTON, and INGRAM, JJ., concur. BUTTS, J., concurs specially.