Opinion ID: 1609412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kelly Method

Text: In establishing Brunson's permitted volume of 696 cubic yards, Russell Kelly chose the single, highest average daily volume of waste Brunson had reported as of December 1992, when ADEM issued its second preliminary permit, namely, 580 cubic yards. This figure, which appeared on the report for the quarter ending December 1991, Kelly multiplied by 1.2, in order, testimony established, to provide a 20% cushion for growth (the Kelly method). This method of establishing permitted volume the trial court declared invalid, holding that it was arbitrary and capricious. Brunson concedes that the court certainly could have enjoined the use of the Kelly method to establish permitted volumes, Appellant's Reply Brief, at 11, had it  correctly determined that the method ... was arbitrary and capricious. Id. (emphasis added). Cf. State Health Planning Agency v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 533 So.2d 255, 257 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); (judicial review [of administrative action] is limited to questions of whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority, whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence, and whether its action was arbitrary); State Dep't of Pensions & Security v. Whitney, 359 So.2d 810, 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). Brunson contends, however, that the Kelly method constituted a reasonable, nonarbitrary basis on which to establish Brunson's permitted volume, because, it insists, that method was based on actual data evidencing the operations of the landfill. For the following reasons, however, we are unpersuaded by Brunson's reasoning. First, ADEM, in its second preliminary permit, declared that it had derived the proposed permitted volume by calculating Brunson's historic average daily volume. (Emphasis added.) The term average, of course, suggests that ADEM had added a number of average daily volume figures, and had then divided the sum by the number of quarters used in calculating that sum. The permitted volume actually derived, however, from a figure representing a historic maximum, that is, the single, highest, average daily volume ever reported by Brunson. Thus, the permitted volumebased, as it was, on this historic maximum average daily volumebore no rational relationship to ADEM's declared formula. Moreover, from all that appears of record, in no other instance had ADEM used the Kelly method to establish a waste facility's permitted volume. The fact that the Kelly method involved verifiable data does not, therefore, validate the method, where the method was used only once, and, in that instance, was based entirely on a single item of information, namely, one atypical average daily volume. Otherwise stated, the permitted volume of 696 cubic yards based on the Kelly method, the origin and application of which were established by undisputed evidence, was too high as a matter of law. This aspect of the dispute is, therefore, subject to the well established exception to the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine, that is to say: Although administrative remedies must generally be exhausted before resort can be had to the courts, such exhaustion will not be required where the issue to be decided is solely a matter of law, not dependent upon disputed facts. Simpson v. Van Ryzin, 289 Ala. 22, 265 So.2d 569, 577 (1972) (emphasis added); Dawson v. Cole, 485 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). Consequently, the trial court, having correctly concluded that the Kelly method was arbitrary and capricious, committed no error in vacating the aspect of [Brunson's] permit calculated thereby. [8] This conclusion does not, however, diminish the fact that the establishment of permitted volume is, by statute, a specific example of administrative action. See Ala. Code 1975, § 22-22A-3, which defines administrative action as including [t]he issuance, modification, repeal or denial of any permit. Thus, although the trial court was competent to determine whether the method used in this case to establish Brunson's permitted volume accorded with applicable rules, statutes, and regulations, it was not empowered by any of those authorities to calculate the permitted volume in the first instance.