payment of $2.4 and $2.7 to counterparties for outstanding foreign currency contracts at September 30, 2000 and 1999, respectively. However, these payments are unlikely due to the fact that Energizer enters into foreign currency contracts to hedge identifiable foreign currency exposures, and as such would generally not terminate  such contracts. (16) ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL MATTERS Government Regulations and Environmental Matters – The operations of Energizer, like those of other companies engaged in the battery business, are subject to various federal, state, foreign and local laws and regulations intended to protect the public health and the environment. These regulations primarily relate to worker safety, air and water quality, underground fuel storage tanks, and waste  handling and disposal.  Energizer has received notices from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state agencies and/or private parties seeking contribution, that it has been identified as a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and may be required to share in  the cost of cleanup with respect to nine federal “Superfund” sites.  It may also be required to share in the cost of cleanup with respect to a state-designated site. Liability under the applicable federal and state statutes which mandate cleanup is strict, meaning that liability may attach regardless of lack of fault, and joint and several, meaning that a liable party may be responsible for all of the costs incurred  in investigating and cleaning up contamination at a site. However,  liability in such matters is typically shared by all of the financially viable responsible parties. The amount of Energizer’s ultimate liability in connection with those sites may depend on many factors, including the volume and toxicity of material contributed to the site, the number of other PRPs and  their financial viability, and the remediation methods and technology to be used. Legal Proceedings  – On April 8, 1998, Zinc Products Company,  a division of Alltrista Corp., a supplier of zinc cans used in the man- ufacture of batteries, filed suit in federal district court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against Energizer, claiming breach of contract when Energizer closed its Fremont, Ohio plant. The plaintiff claims lost profits and other damages of approximately $2.8. The case has been set for trial in January 2001. It is difficult to quantify with certainty the potential financial impact of actions regarding expenditures for environmental matters, particu- larly remediation, and future capital expenditures for environmental control equipment. Nevertheless, based upon the information  currently available, Energizer believes that its ultimate liability  arising from such environmental matters, taking into account  established accruals of $3.6 for estimated liabilities, should not  be material to its financial position. Such liability could, however,  be material to results of operations or cash flows for a particular quarter or annual period.  41 Many European countries, as well as the European Union, have been very active in adopting and enforcing environmental regulations. In many developing countries in which Energizer operates, there has not been significant governmental regulation relating to the environ- ment, occupational safety, employment practices or other business matters routinely regulated in the United States. As such economies develop, it is possible that new regulations may increase the risk and expense of doing business in such countries.  In addition, Energizer undertook certain programs to reduce or  eliminate the environmental contamination at the rechargeable bat- tery facility in Gainesville, Florida, which was divested in November 1999. In the event that the buyer would become unable to continue such programs, Energizer could be required to bear financial responsibility for such programs as well as for other known and unknown environmental conditions at the site. 