Alleging problems ranging from supposedly polluted discharge into Lake Washington to a lack of monitoring for pollutants on the property, an environmentalist group has declared its formal intent to sue Kenmore’s Waterfront Construction, Inc.

Acting on behalf of a group of Kenmore residents, Seattle’s Waste Action Project sent the firm a notice of intent to file a citizen’s lawsuit under the federal Clean Water Act.

According to Waste Project Executive Director Jeff Wingard, the company has 60 days from Sept. 10, the date the notice of intent was sent, to respond to the group’s complaints or a formal lawsuit will be filed.

Sitting near the Lake Pointe development, Waterfront has been the subject of conversation in the community for some time and become somewhat of an issue in the current Kenmore City Council elections.

Waterfront’s Derrick Jennings said Sept. 24 that the company had not yet responded to the complaint, but intends to do so. He said the company’s basic position is that the intent letter contains a number of inaccuracies.

Judging from the notice letter and Wingard’s comments, allegedly improper and possibly contaminated discharges of bilge and waste water into Lake Washington might be the biggest complaint brought by Waste Action so far.

“A number of neighbors … have seen a lot of things happen at Waterfront,” Wingard claimed. “People were seeing discharge,” he further alleged.

Written by attorneys for Waste Action, the letter sent Waterfront claims the firm allowed improper discharge of “turbid bilge water” into Lake Washington or the Sammamish Slough on at least 20 dates ranging from January to July of this year. The letter claims such discharges are in violation of a permit granted the firm by the state Department of Ecology.

Another major complaint, according to Wingard, is the company’s supposed lack of monitoring of water run off. Wingard said Waterfront failed to undertake required storm-water sampling in the second quarter of 2009. Both Wingard and the intent letter said the company did complete sampling as required during other quarters, but the complaint letter charges Waterfront officials did react properly when the samples showed turbidity and zinc levels above those allowed.

Jennings said no sample was taken during the second quarter because there was no qualifying rain event on which to base a sampling.

Lastly, one large portion of the intent letter criticizes Waterfront for allegedly not adopting and implementing an adequate storm-water plan, again allegedly in violation of permits.

“City of Kenmore and Department of Ecology officials have visited our Kenmore site several times following up on citizen complaints,” Jennings said in a written statement. “Waterfront has consistently been found to be in compliance with our storm-water permit, city of Kenmore land-use issues and our administrative order from the Department of Ecology.”

Jennings added the administrative order authorizes Waterfront to conduct several of the activities alleged as violations by Waste Project.

In both his written and oral comments, Jennings praised Waste Project and said he supports the idea of citizen law suits.

“Waterfront appreciates Waste Action Project’s role as ‘citizen regulators’,” he wrote.

The names of the Kenmore residents involved with the potential lawsuit have not been made directly public by Waste Action or Wingard. The neighbors did not respond to requests for comment relayed through Waste Action.

Jennings said his company mostly engages in waterfront reconstruction, working with residential and commercial docks. The company also does dredging work, that activity being the reason for the many barges that visit the Kenmore facility. Jennings said that dredge material is tested as required, with the results of that testing passed on to the appropriate authorities.

Kenmore voters will fill two expiring seats on their City Council this year. Challenging incumbent Laurie Sperry candidate Diane Brennan has sharply criticized City Hall for a supposed lack of action regarding Waterfront.

“It’s not a black-and-white issue,” Sperry said, stating, like Wingard, that city and company officials have met several times. She argued the city has limited jurisdiction over Waterfront’s activities, with the firm’s key permits under the control of the Department of Ecology.

Vying with challenger Patrick O’Brien, incumbent Allan Van Ness said he applauded the steps taken by Waste Action and the neighbors who tracked the company’s alleged violations. He added the city brought together, possibly for the first time, but twice this year, all the major players in the situation, including Waterfont and state officials. But like Sperry, he said the city’s regulatory powers regarding Waterfront are very limited.

“It has been very clear that the city of Kenmore is not involved, not liable,” he said.