Title: Oak Grove Resources, LLC  v. White

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:12/16/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
_________________________
1100525
_________________________
Oak Grove Resources, LLC, and Cliffs North American Coal,
LLC 
v.
Tommy White et al.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division
(CV-97-626)
BOLIN, Justice.
Oak Grove Resources, LLC, and Cliffs North American Coal,
LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Oak Grove"),
appeal from the trial court's order in favor of a class of
plaintiffs in this toxic-tort class action, finding that Oak
1100525
The class of plaintiffs consists of property owners
1
residing in the vicinity of the Concord Coal Preparation Plant
located in the Concord community in Jefferson County.  
The plaintiffs originally named as defendants U.S. Steel
2
Mining Company, LLC, United States Steel Corporation, and K-
Lee Processing, Inc.  In December 2009, Oak Grove Resources
and Cliffs North American Coal were added as defendants
because they succeeded U.S. Steel Mining Company as operator
and owner, respectively, of the Concord Coal Preparation
Plant.  The originally named defendants were released pursuant
to a settlement agreement.
2
Grove failed to satisfy the requirements of a settlement
agreement between the parties and ordering the continued
monitoring of air near the plaintiffs' properties for the
presence of coal dust for a period of one year. 
Facts and Procedural History
On July 31, 1997, the plaintiffs  sued Oak Grove  alleging
1
2
that it operated the Concord Coal Preparation Plant in a
manner that caused coal dust to become airborne and to migrate
to their properties, where it settled, causing them to suffer
both personal injury and property damage.  In October 2002,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the 2002
settlement 
agreement"); 
the 
2002 
settlement 
agreement 
provided
for certain injunctive relief and the payment of attorney fees
and expenses.  The injunctive relief required Oak Grove to
complete 14 specific remedial measures within 24 months of the
1100525
3
execution of the 2002 settlement agreement.  The 2002
settlement agreement provided the following with respect to
the remedial measures:
"The remedial measures set out herein shall
include the proper maintenance and upgrade of the
system to facilitate the goals of eliminating or
minimizing particulate matter and other airborne
emissions affecting the plaintiff class.  The
Plaintiffs' expert shall review the above remedial
measures and shall inspect the facility, approve or
suggest 
modifications 
or 
additional 
remedial
measures.  Should the proposed additional remedial
measures not be acceptable to [Oak Grove], the
parties shall present the dispute to the court. Once
every six (6) months for a period of twenty-four
(24) 
months, 
[Oak 
Grove] 
shall 
provide 
to
plaintiffs' expert and to the Court a report as to
the status of compliance with the injunctive relief
required by this Agreement.  Plaintiffs' expert may
revisit the facility after receipt and review of
each such report, if necessary, to confirm the
status of compliance."
The 2002 settlement agreement also provided that the trial
court 
"shall 
retain 
exclusive 
jurisdiction 
over 
this
controversy, the interpretation, implementation, application,
and enforcement of this Settlement Agreement, the Final
Judgement, 
and 
all 
injunctions 
and 
releases 
therein
contained."
1100525
4
Following a fairness hearing, the trial court, on October
31, 2002, entered a final order approving the 2002 settlement
agreement and stating:
"The 
Court 
finds, 
based 
on 
the 
evidence
presented at the Fairness Hearing and the submittals
of the parties, that completion and continued
performance of the Injunctive Relief set forth in
the Settlement Agreement will prevent or minimize
the off-site migration of particulate matter or
other airborne emissions generated in the operations
of [Oak Grove] at the ... Concord coal preparation
plant such that any such off site migration will not
be so offensive as to impair comfortable enjoyment
of property or to materially interfere with the
ordinary comforts of human existence."
The trial court also expressly retained jurisdiction over the
matter for the purpose of "enforcing [the] Final Judgment
Order and for the purposes of exercising its equitable powers
supervising [Oak Grove's] commitments in carrying out the
Settlement."
Oak Grove implemented the remedial measures at the
Concord plant following the trial court's approval of the 2002
settlement agreement.  However, the plaintiffs continued to
complain that the Concord plant emitted coal dust onto their
properties 
and 
that 
the 
remedial 
measures 
had 
not
satisfactorily 
solved 
the 
problem. 
 
Based 
on 
the
recommendation of their expert, the plaintiffs argued that the
1100525
5
injunctive relief contained in the 2002 settlement agreement
should be modified and that additional remedial measures
should be taken in order to facilitate the goal of eliminating
or minimizing the effect of coal dust on the plaintiffs'
properties.
The plaintiffs and Oak Grove negotiated and ultimately
agreed to supplement the 2002 settlement agreement to allow
for certain specific additional remedial measures relating to
the Concord plant.  The supplemental agreement called for a
one-year ambient-air-monitoring program to determine whether
there was an excessive amount of coal dust migrating from the
Concord plant to the plaintiffs' properties.  If the air-
monitoring program showed no exceedances of predetermined
levels of coal dust migrating from the plant to the
plaintiffs' properties then the parties agreed that the 2002
settlement agreement would be fulfilled and the case resolved.
Specifically, the parties agreed that if the air monitoring
did not establish any exceedances, the plaintiffs would (1)
release Oak Grove from any and all claims the plaintiffs would
have had up to the date of Oak Grove's dismissal; (2) be
permanently enjoined from bringing claims against Oak Grove
1100525
6
that could have been asserted in this action; and (3) jointly
submit with Oak Grove a proposed order stating that Oak Grove
had fully complied with the 2002 settlement agreement. If,
however, the air-monitoring program showed exceedances, the
plaintiffs would be allowed to petition the trial court for a
determination as to whether further remedial measures were
necessary.  On December 11, 2008, the trial court entered an
order approving the parties' supplemental agreement ("the 2008
supplement"), stating that "should there not be a successful
completion of the monitoring program, then this Court retains
jurisdiction to direct and supervise, consistent with the
Settlement Agreement, additional remedial measures ...."
The 2008 supplement set forth a number of extensive
details regarding the air-monitoring program.  The 2008
supplement provided for two air monitors to be installed –-
one in the Concord neighborhood near the plant ("the
neighborhood site") and one on the premises of the Concord
plant between the plant and the neighborhood ("the plant
site").  The 2008 supplement did not provide an exact location
for the placement of the monitors but provided only that the
1100525
7
parties and their experts would "work together in good faith
to determine the exact locations for the two sites."
The 2008 supplement established an in-depth scientific
method for collecting and analyzing air samples to determine
whether there was an excessive migration of coal-dust
pollutants from the plant to the plaintiffs' properties.  The
2008 supplement provided that a validated measurement of
ambient air containing particulate matter above 150ug/m3 at
the neighborhood site would be deemed an exceedance.  If an
exceedance occurred that was determined to be attributable to
the Concord plant, then the plaintiffs' expert was entitled to
inspect the Concord plant.  If two or more consecutive
exceedances occurred that were attributable to the Concord
plant that were not timely corrected by Oak Grove, then the
plaintiffs could recommend to the trial court additional
modifications or remedial measures to be implemented.
The 2008 supplement further adopted a specific air-
monitoring protocol prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc. ("the
Shaw protocol").  The Shaw protocol, among other things, set
forth the criteria for locating, placing, and handling the
1100525
8
monitors used for the ambient-air testing.  Section 4.4 of the
Shaw protocol provides:
"[United 
States 
Environmental 
Protection 
Agency]
siting criteria states that optimal placement of the
sampler inlet is at breathing height [approximately
1.8 meters (6 feet)] and that the samplers are to be
placed at least 20 meters (65.6 feet) from the drip
line of trees, and located away from obstacles such
as buildings, so that the distance between obstacles
and the samplers is at least twice the height that
the obstacle protrudes above the sampler.  In
addition, there must be unrestricted airflow in an
arc of at least 270 degrees around the sampler.  For
this project, the sampler locations will be selected
that best meet the necessary criteria for location
from obstructions and trees.  Taking into account of
property boundaries, access, right-of-ways, and tree
lines, a 'best-fit' scenario will be used to site
the monitors, such that each sited monitor meets the
siting criteria as best as is possible considering
expected limitations, such as, trees, homes, etc.
The sample inlets will be located approximately 1.8
meters (6 feet) above the ground."
The 2008 supplement also provided a multistep process by
which the parties could dispute the test results of the air-
monitoring program.  Pursuant to this process, if neither
party objected to the test results, then those results would
be deemed "final and binding."  Finally, the 2008 supplement
provided that Oak Grove would pay the plaintiffs attorney fees
and costs incurred in the case.
1100525
9
Although the trial court approved the 2008 supplement,
the issue of the exact locations at which to place the air
monitors remained undetermined.  The parties had had numerous
discussions relative to this issue. In September 2008, the
parties' counsel met to discuss the location of the air
monitors.  Counsel for the plaintiffs recommended four
potential locations for the placement of the air monitor at
the neighborhood site.  On October 6, 2008, counsel for Oak
Grove notified the plaintiffs by electronic mail ("e-mail")
that the  proposed locations for the air monitor at the
neighborhood site were rejected by Oak Grove as being
unsuitable because of their close proximity to trees, which
violated 
both 
Environmental 
Protection 
Agency 
("EPA") 
criteria
and the Shaw protocol.  However, in that same e-mail counsel
for Oak Grove proposed  an alternative location for the
neighborhood site in a five-acre open field.  Counsel for Oak
Grove stated that this  proposed neighborhood site was secured
by a fence and a gate; that the site was located a sufficient
distance from the tree line so as to prevent obstruction of
the monitor; and that the site was in the process of being
purchased by Oak Grove.  Oak Grove provided the plaintiffs
1100525
Tarr testified that he did not recall having any concern
3
with the location of the neighborhood site or making any
recommendations to move the proposed site.  Moving the
proposed site "closer to the neighborhood" would equate to
moving the site north because the Concord neighborhood was
located to the north of the proposed site.  
10
with a map of the proposed location of the neighborhood site,
which did not depict any trees in the area.
On October 8, 2008, counsel for the plaintiffs responded
by telephone and informed Oak Grove that he would visit the
proposed alternative neighborhood site and that he "thought it
would be acceptable."  On October 10, 2008, counsel for the
plaintiffs  notified Oak Grove by e-mail stating that, "[a]t
this time, I do not have a problem with your choice of the
site."
On October 24, 2008, Oak Grove forwarded to the
plaintiffs' counsel an updated draft of the Shaw protocol,
including a map, identifying a more exact location in the
five-acre field where it was proposing to place the
neighborhood-site air monitor.  Counsel for the plaintiffs
responded by e-mail on October 28, 2008, stating that Jim
Tarr, the plaintiffs' environmental expert, "wants the off-
site 
location 
in 
the 
same 
area 
but 
closer 
to 
the
neighborhood."   On October 29, 2008, the parties' counsel
3
1100525
Moving the monitor site to the east would have the effect
4
of moving the monitor closer to the tree line, but it would
still conform with the distances required by the Shaw
protocol. 
11
met, and the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel for Oak
Grove at that time that Tarr wanted the neighborhood site
moved to the east so that it would be in a direct line with
the plant site to the south and the center of the Concord
neighborhood to the north.   On November 4, 2008, counsel for
4
the plaintiffs reaffirmed in an e-mail to Oak Grove the
request to have the neighborhood site moved, stating:
"What we want to accomplish is to have an
independent contractor ... do the actual monitoring.
That would include setting it up in accordance with
basically what you provided me in documents, with
the exception of moving the sites slightly and
making sure that the [neighborhood site] will be
facing in the correct direction."
Counsel for Oak Grove consulted with Ralph Lopez, Oak
Grove's environmental manager, and Shaw Environmental in order
to identify a new neighborhood site that would satisfy both
the plaintiffs' requests and the EPA criteria for air
monitoring. On December 24, 2008, counsel for Oak Grove
forwarded an e-mail to the plaintiffs' counsel along with an
aerial photograph prepared by Lopez depicting a new and more
easterly neighborhood site.  The aerial photograph depicted
1100525
Moving the neighborhood site to the "right" on the map
5
equates to moving it east.   
A considerable amount of open field lies to the northwest
6
of the final location of the neighborhood-site air monitor.
12
both the neighborhood site and the plant site, along with the
natural landscape, including the tree lines. The e-mail
stated:
"Here is the depiction of the approximate
locations of the monitors.  As you can see from the
picture below, we cannot go any further east with
neighborhood site because of the trees and the
difficult terrain.  The plant monitor and the
neighborhood monitor will be in a straight line from
the plant.  We will proceed on this basis unless you
have a question or concern."
On January 7, 2009, counsel for the plaintiffs responded as
follows:
"I can't tell if this is what we originally
agreed on after moving the original proposed site to
the right
 on the map.  This one appears to have a
[5]
forest in front of it.  If this is what we
originally discussed with our proposed move I don't
have a problem but if it is something different
please give me a call."
Counsel for Oak Grove responded that same day as follows: 
"We are moving it as far east as we can, as
shown on the map.  The 'forest' prevents us from
going any further, and therefore it is not something
different than we discussed."6
1100525
The initial results from the air-monitoring tests
7
indicated no exceedances of coal dust. 
13
A time sheet submitted to Oak Grove by the plaintiffs' counsel
indicates that the plaintiffs' counsel visited the proposed
monitoring sites on January 9, 2009.  The plaintiffs' counsel
raised no objection at that time to the proposed sites. There
were no further communications between the plaintiffs and Oak
Grove regarding the approval of the proposed sites.
Oak Grove began construction and installation of the air
monitors in January 2009.  On May 28, 2009, counsel for the
plaintiffs communicated with Oak Grove by letter inquiring
about the progress being made on the installation of the air
monitors.  On June 25, 2009, Oak Grove notified the plaintiffs
that air monitoring at both the neighborhood site and the
plant site would begin on July 30, 2009.  
In October 2009, approximately two months after testing7
had begun, the plaintiffs' counsel informed Oak Grove's
counsel that he wanted to inspect the air-monitoring
locations.  Counsel for the plaintiffs and an investigator
photographed the monitoring locations and measured the
distances from the fences surrounding the monitors to the tree
lines.  After inspecting the air monitors, counsel for the
1100525
14
plaintiffs objected to Oak Grove regarding the locations of
the monitors, stating that the air monitors were "in the
trees."
On November 16, 2009, the plaintiffs moved the trial
court to have the court inspect personally, along with the
plaintiffs' expert, the air monitors, stating that the
monitors appeared to be "constructed so that inaccurate
readings would result" and that the monitors were not located
"in open areas where you would expect to obtain accurate
readings, but are essentially hidden in the woods."  On
November 18, 2009, after receiving the plaintiffs' motion for
inspection, counsel for Oak Grove informed the plaintiffs by
letter that it had no opposition to the plaintiffs' counsel
and expert inspecting the air-monitoring sites.  On November
20, 2009, Oak Grove responded to the plaintiffs' motion for an
inspection, stating, among other things, that the terms of the
2008 supplement allowed the plaintiffs' expert to inspect the
monitoring sites; that the plaintiffs should not now be
allowed to complain about the location of the air-monitoring
sites because the sites had been agreed upon by the parties
after extensive negotiations; and that the motion for
1100525
15
inspection was premature because the plaintiffs had not
followed the procedures set forth in  the 2008 supplement for
inspecting and challenging the air-monitoring program.  On
December 1, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for inspection.  During the hearing the
parties agreed to allow the plaintiffs' expert, Tarr, to
inspect the air-monitoring sites.  
Tarr conducted his inspection of the air-monitoring sites
on January 28, 2010.  On June 2, 2010, the plaintiffs' counsel
notified Oak Grove's counsel by letter of certain concerns the
plaintiffs had with the location of the air-monitoring sites.
The plaintiffs stated that the air-monitoring locations
violated the EPA criteria and the Shaw protocol because of the
close proximity of the air monitors to the tree lines.  On
June 25, 2010, Oak Grove responded by letter stating that the
site distances for the air monitors from the tree lines were
well within what is required by the EPA standards and the Shaw
protocol.  As of June 25, 2010, the air-monitoring results
from both the plant site and the neighborhood site had
indicated no exceedances of coal dust.
1100525
16
On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs moved the trial court to
require Oak Grove to comply with the 2002 settlement agreement
and the 2008 supplement and orders of the court and further
moved the trial court for additional remedial measures to
ensure compliance with those agreements and court orders.  The
plaintiffs alleged that Oak Grove had not been in compliance
with the trial court's order to reasonably and properly
monitor the alleged emission of coal dust from the Concord
plant; that there needed to be additional remedial measures
employed in order to enforce the trial court's order; and that
the air monitors had been placed at sites where accurate
readings of the amounts of coal dust being emitted could not
be obtained.  The plaintiffs sought a hearing to determine
whether Oak Grove had complied with the trial court's order;
requested that the trial court inspect the monitoring sites;
requested that the air monitors be relocated to acceptable
monitoring locations; and requested that Oak Grove be required
to continue air monitoring for an additional year.
On July 12, 2010, Oak Grove responded to the plaintiffs'
motion to comply with the settlement agreements and the
court's orders and for further remedial measures, arguing that
1100525
17
the plaintiffs should not now be allowed to object to the
monitor locations after working with Oak Grove to select those
locations; that the plaintiffs' assertion that the monitors
are improperly located too close to the tree lines is
incorrect; and that the plaintiffs' motion should be stricken
or denied as premature, because the plaintiffs failed to
object to the air-monitoring process in accordance with the
detailed procedures set forth in the 2008 supplement.
On September 22, 2010, Oak Grove moved the trial court to
enforce the 2008 supplement and to dismiss the case with
prejudice, stating that the air-monitoring program had been
conducted pursuant to the 2008 supplement and the Shaw
protocol until August 12, 2010, with no exceedances of coal
dust being reported at the neighborhood site during the one-
year monitoring period.  Oak Grove argued that the plaintiffs
were not entitled to further remedial measures in the form of
continued air monitoring because, it said,  the conditions of
the 2008 supplement and the requirements of the Shaw protocol
had been satisfied.  Oak Grove further argued that it was
entitled to a release of the plaintiffs' claims against it and
to a dismissal of those claims with prejudice.
1100525
The 
plaintiffs 
adopted the 
allegations 
contained 
in 
their
8
June 30, 2010, motion to require Oak Grove to comply with the
settlement agreements and orders of the court, which was still
pending before the trial court when they filed their September
24, 2010, motion. 
18
On September 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition
asking the trial court to enforce the 2002 settlement
agreement and the 2008 supplement and for court intervention.8
The plaintiffs stated that the parties agreed in the 2008
supplement that the location chosen for the neighborhood site
would be a location that would give the parties and the trial
court an accurate measurement of the coal dust being emitted
into the community.  The plaintiffs stated that the
neighborhood site was to be a "best-fit" site that would
conform to acceptable environmental standards.  The plaintiffs
alleged that, although they were shown the proposed location
of the neighborhood site, they never actually saw the exact
location chosen by Oak Grove because the air monitor at the
neighborhood site was actually constructed several months
after they were shown the proposed location.  The plaintiffs
further alleged that the neighborhood site was unacceptable
because it was hidden and obstructed by trees, and they
objected and demanded a relocation of the air monitor in the
1100525
19
neighborhood site.  The plaintiffs argued that Oak Grove was
in breach of the 2002 settlement agreement, the 2008
supplement, and the agreement of the parties to reduce or to
eliminate pollution in the Concord community.  The plaintiffs
sought an order from the trial court requiring the placement
of additional monitoring devices in the neighborhood site for
an additional 18 months.
On December 3, 2010, Oak Grove responded to the
plaintiffs' petition to enforce the settlement agreements and
for court intervention, arguing, among other things, that the
plaintiffs had agreed to the location of the air-monitoring
sites and that the plaintiffs' objections to the air-
monitoring sites were barred by the doctrine of laches.  
Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court, on
January 14, 2011, entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for compliance with the settlement agreements and their
petition to enforce those settlement agreements and for court
intervention.  The trial court ordered additional air
monitoring for a period of one year.  Oak Grove appeals.
Standard of Review
1100525
20
This Court has stated the following with regard to the
standard of review applicable in this case:
"'[A] permanent injunction is reviewed de novo.'
TFT, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1238,
1241-42 (Ala. 1999), overruled on other grounds by
Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So. 3d 1173, 1176
(Ala. 2008). 'Nevertheless, this Court has noted
that a trial court's consideration of ore tenus
testimony has a bearing upon the standard of review
we apply to the entry of a permanent injunction.'
Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So. 2d
692, 701 (Ala. 2008).
"'"Where evidence is presented to
the trial court ore tenus, a
presumption of correctness exists
as to the court's conclusions on
issues of fact; its determination
will not be disturbed unless it
is clearly erroneous, without
supporting evidence, manifestly
unjust, or against the great
weight of the evidence. However,
when the trial court improperly
applies the law to the facts, no
presumption of correctness exists
as to the court's judgment."
"'American Petroleum Equip. & Constr., Inc.
v. Fancher, 708 So. 2d 129, 132 (Ala. 1997)
(citations omitted).'
"Collins v. Rodgers, 938 So. 2d 379, 384 (Ala.
2006)."
Kappa Sigma Fraternity v. Price-Williams, 40 So. 3d 683, 692-
93 (Ala. 2009).
1100525
Although Oak Grove casts its arguments in terms of the
9
placement of "monitors," the briefs on appeal emphasize the
location of the monitor at the neighborhood site.
21
Discussion
Oak Grove argues, among other things, that because the
plaintiffs acquiesced in the placement of the air monitors and
delayed raising any objections to the locations of the
monitors until after the monitors had been constructed and
testing had commenced, they are barred by the doctrine of
laches from seeking further injunctive relief in the form of
continued air monitoring pursuant to the 2008 supplement. The
plaintiffs contend that there was no agreement between the
parties as to the placement of the air monitors and that
nothing in the 2008 supplement prohibits the plaintiffs from
objecting to the location of a monitor either before or after
initially approving a location or after testing has begun.
Further, they contend that Oak Grove's equitable-bar defense
fails because, they say, they objected to the monitor
locations "only a short time [two months] after" air
monitoring had commenced.  
9
Oak Grove has asserted the equitable defense of laches in
support of its position.  This Court has stated:
1100525
22
"'"Laches" is defined as neglect to assert a right
or a claim that, taken together with a lapse of time
and other circumstances causing disadvantage or
prejudice to the adverse party, operates as a bar.'
Ex parte Grubbs, 542 So. 2d 927, 928 (Ala. 1989)
(citing Black's Law Dictionary 787 (5th ed. 1979)).
It is an equitable doctrine applied by the courts to
prevent a party that has delayed asserting a claim
to assert that claim after some change in conditions
has occurred that would make belated enforcement of
the claim unjust. Ex parte Grubbs, 542 So. 2d at
929. A party asserting laches as a defense is
generally required to show that the plaintiff has
delayed in asserting a claim, that that delay is
inexcusable, and that the delay has caused the party
asserting the defense undue prejudice. Id."
Elliott v. Navistar, Inc., 65 So. 3d 379, 386 (Ala. 2010).
Further, 
"'"'[l]aches, in legal significance, is not mere
delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to
another. So long as parties are in the same
condition, it matters little whether one presses a
right promptly or slowly, within limits allowed by
law; but when, knowing his rights, he takes no step
to enforce them until the condition of the other
party has, in good faith, become so changed that he
cannot be restored to his former state, if the right
be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and
operates as estoppel against the assertion of the
right.'"'"
Sykes v. Sykes, 262 Ala. 277, 281, 78 So. 2d 273, 277 (1954)
(quoting Hauser v. Foley & Co., 190 Ala. 437, 440, 67 So. 252,
253 (1914), quoting in turn other sources).  Because laches is
a threshold defense that we find dispositive in this case, we
1100525
23
will address that argument first.  City of Huntsville v. Stove
House 5, Inc., 3 So. 3d 186 (Ala. 2008).
The record indicates that there were considerable
communications and discussions between the parties regarding
the location of the air monitor at the neighborhood site.
Counsel 
for 
the 
plaintiffs initially recommended four
potential locations for  the neighborhood-site air monitor;
however, Oak Grove rejected those four potential sites as
unsuitable because of their close proximity to trees, a
closeness that violated EPA criteria and the Shaw protocol.
Oak Grove then recommended a five-acre open field as an
alternative location for the neighborhood site.  Oak Grove
provided the plaintiffs with a map of the proposed location of
the neighborhood site, which did not depict any trees in the
area.  Counsel for the plaintiffs informed Oak Grove that he
would visit the proposed alternative site and that he "thought
it would be acceptable."  Subsequently, counsel for the
plaintiffs notified Oak Grove that, "[a]t this time, I do not
have a problem with your choice of the site."
After receiving the above qualified confirmation from the
plaintiffs that the open-field location was acceptable, Oak
1100525
24
Grove recommended to the plaintiffs a more exact location
within the five-acre field in which to place the neighborhood-
site air monitor.  After reviewing the more precise location
recommended by Oak Grove, counsel for the plaintiffs requested
that 
the 
neighborhood 
site 
be 
moved 
"closer 
to 
the
neighborhood."  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs also
requested that the neighborhood site be moved to the east so
that it would be in a direct line with the plant site to the
south and to the center of the Concord community to the north.
On November 4, 2008, counsel for the plaintiffs reaffirmed in
an e-mail to Oak Grove the request to move the neighborhood
site and stated that the neighborhood site would be set up "in
accordance with basically what you provided me in documents,
with the exception of moving the sites slightly and making
sure that the [neighborhood site] will be facing in the
correct direction."  On December 24, 2008, counsel for Oak
Grove forwarded an e-mail to the plaintiffs' counsel along
with an aerial photograph depicting a new and more easterly
neighborhood site within the five-acre open field.  The aerial
photograph depicted the neighborhood site along with the
natural landscape, including the tree lines.  The e-mail
1100525
25
informed the plaintiffs that Oak Grove "[could not] go any
further east with neighborhood site because of the trees and
the difficult terrain"; that the "plant monitor and the
neighborhood monitor will be in a straight line from the
plant"; and that it would "proceed on this basis unless you
have a question or concern."
The plaintiffs' counsel then responded on January 7,
2009, to Oak Grove's e-mail and the receipt of the aerial
photograph, stating:
"I can't tell if this is what we originally
agreed on after moving the original proposed site to
the right on the map.  This one appears to have a
forest in front of it.  If this is what we
originally discussed with our proposed move I don't
have a problem but if it is something different
please give me a call."
Counsel for Oak Grove responded by assuring the plaintiffs'
counsel that this was the location that had been discussed by
the parties and that it was "not something different than we
discussed."  Counsel for the plaintiffs visited the final
proposed location for the air monitor at the neighborhood site
on January 9, 2009, and raised no objection at that time to
the location of the monitor.
1100525
26
Oak Grove began constructing and installing the air
monitors shortly after the plaintiffs' counsel visited the
proposed sites and voiced no objection to the proposed
locations of the monitors.  The record indicates that while
the 
air 
monitors 
were 
being 
constructed 
the 
parties
communicated with each other regarding the progress of the
construction of the monitors, as well as other issues.
However, nothing in the record indicates that the plaintiffs'
counsel raised any objections to the location of the air
monitors while the air monitors were being constructed.
On June 25, 2009, Oak Grove notified the plaintiffs that
air monitoring at both the neighborhood site and the plant
site would begin on July 30, 2009.  The initial test results
from the air-monitoring program indicated that no exceedances
of coal dust were reaching the Concord community.  In October
2009, two months after testing had begun, the plaintiffs'
counsel and investigator visited the monitoring locations for
the first time since January 2009 and took their first
measurements of the distances between the air monitors and the
tree lines.  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs raised their
1100525
27
first objections regarding the locations of the monitoring
sites.  
Tarr, the plaintiffs' expert, did not personally visit
the site locations to conduct his inspection until January 28,
2010, almost seven months after testing had begun.  Following
Tarr's inspection in January 2010, the plaintiffs, on June 2,
2010, raised further objections to Oak Grove regarding the
locations of the air-monitoring sites. On June 30, 2010, the
plaintiffs first asserted their right under the 2008
supplement to further remedial measures in the form of
continued air monitoring based on their claim that Oak Grove
was not in compliance with the 2008 supplement because it had
violated the terms of the supplement by locating the air-
monitoring sites too close to the tree lines. 
The evidence indicates that the plaintiffs were aware of
the location of the air monitors in January 2009, after their
counsel had viewed the proposed locations both in person and
on an aerial photograph that depicted the proximity of the
proposed sites to the tree lines.  The plaintiffs made no
objection to the location of the air monitors at this time
based on their  proximity to the tree lines.  After much
1100525
28
discussion and communication by the parties, including the
changing of the initial specific neighborhood-site location on
the five-acre tract as requested by the plaintiffs, and in
reliance on the plaintiffs' acquiescence to the site as moved
to accommodate the plaintiffs, Oak Grove, at substantial
expense, which included purchasing the property on which the
neighborhood site was constructed, thereafter constructed and
installed the air monitors at the proposed sites. At no time
during the construction of the air monitors and before testing
commenced did the plaintiffs raise objections to the locations
of the monitors.  Rather, no objection was raised by the
plaintiffs to the site locations until two months after
testing began in July 2009. The plaintiffs' expert did not
visit the air-monitoring  sites until January 2010, after
which the plaintiffs raised further objections and eventually
sought in June 2010 to enforce their right to further remedial
measures based on their claim that the monitoring sites were
located too close to the tree lines.  We conclude that the
plaintiffs inexcusably delayed in asserting their rights under
the 2008 supplement and that Oak Grove would be unduly
prejudiced if the plaintiffs are allowed to assert those
1100525
29
rights at this point. Elliott, supra.  Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court's judgment awarding further
injunctive relief in the form of continued air monitoring is
due to be reversed and the case remanded.  Our resolution of
this issue pretermits discussion of the remaining issues
raised by Oak Grove.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Malone, C.J., and Woodall, Stuart, Parker, Murdock, Shaw,
Main, and Wise, JJ., concur.