AFTER AN INITIAL MEETING IN SEPTEMBER 1998, SPRINT AND EPA E XCHANGED LETTERS CONCERNING THE AGENCY'S INTEREPRETATION OF THE AUDIT POLICY AND OTHER ISSUES PERTAINING TO EPA'S TREATM ENT OF SPRINT'S DISCLOSURE. SPRINT NOTIFIED EPA THAT THEY P LANNED TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF EPCRA AND CWA (SPCC PLANS) COM PLIANCE STATUS FOR ITS FACILITIES. IN AUGUST 1999 SPRINT SU BMITTED A MASTER LIST OF 1100 REGULATED FACILTIIES THAT IT I NTENDED T OEVALUTAE UNDER ITS DISCLOSURE. EPA DETERMNED THA T WHILE SPRINT DID NOT MEET THE 10 DAY PROMPT DISCLOSURE OF THE A/P, WAIVING THE GRAVITY COMPONENT OF THE PENALTY IS APP ROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION. UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR AUDIT, SPRINT PROVIDED EPA INFORMATION CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF EPC RA 311 AND 312 RELATED TO THE PRESENCE OF SULFURIC ACID, D IESEL FUEL AND LEAD AT 258 FACILITIES LOCATED IN 37 STATES, AND 203 FACILITIES VIOLATING SPCC REQUIREMENTS LOCATED IN 23 STATES.