If I understand it correctly, Eastman Kodak has a long history of chemical manufacturing - and much of that manufacturing had wider applicability than just to the photographic industries. They developed and manufactured many products - at one time they competed with the likes of Dupont in the depth and breadth of their product lines.

I wouldn't be surprised if much of their environmental exposure relates to that history.

If my knowledge of Forte is correct, they are unlikely to have that type of exposure.

Kodak has a history of responding well to environmental concerns, as they become apparent, but much of Kodak's pioneering work was done before anybody understood those concerns.

I suggest that modern manufacturing processes are much more likely to be environmentally "gentle" - thus I would be surprised if the Kodak/Lucky facilities were very problematic.

IMHO it is the historic facilities and resources that create the most concern for Kodak.

Matt