as amended on denial of reh’g (July 28, 2006). In addition, no other statutory preclusion provision under § 6972(b)(2)(A)-(C) applies to this RCRA citizen suit. Defendant does not contest this. In fact, even when EPA consent orders pursuant to CERCLA are in place, courts in this Circuit and elsewhere have found that such consent orders do not preclude citizen suits under RCRA, where the consent order did not remediate all of the harm. Organic Chems. Site PRP Grp. v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 660, 665 (W.D.Mich.1998) (denying motion to dismiss RCRA citizen suit for cleanup of soil contamination where plaintiff alleged EPA had taken action only with respect to groundwater contamination); A-C Reorg. Trust v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 968 F.Supp. 423, 430-31 (E.D.Wis.1997) (<HOLDING>). In sum, this court does not lack jurisdiction
holding that railroads rights under 1862 act were for surface easement only holding the michigan department of natural resources liable under cercla for remedial actions which exacerbated the contamination at a site holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel holding rcra claim regarding groundwater contamination not futile where epa consent order only expressly covered surface contamination and might not extend to groundwater holding that amendment is futile if the proposed amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted