Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations that can impose civil and criminal sanctions and that may require it to mitigate the effects of contamination caused by the release or disposal of hazardous substances into the environment. Under one law, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), an owner or operator of property may be held strictly liable for remediating contamination without regard to whether that person caused the contamination, and without regard to whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. Because several of the Company's production sites have a history of industrial use, it is impossible to predict precisely what effect these legal requirements will have on the Company. European Regulations. Under the Industrial Emission Directive ("IED"), European Union member state governments are expected to adopt rules and implement environmental permitting programs relating to air, water and waste for industrial facilities. In this context, concepts such as BAT ("best available technique") are being explored. Future implementation of these concepts may result in technical modifications in the Company's European facilities. In addition, under the Environmental Liability Directive, European Union member states can require the remediation of soil and groundwater contamination in certain circumstances, under the "polluter pays principle." The Company is unable to predict the impact these requirements and concepts may have on its future costs of compliance. Contract Disputes with Goodrich and PolyOne. In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich") chemical manufacturing facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, Goodrich agreed to indemnify the Company for any liabilities related to preexisting contamination at the site. For its part, the Company agreed to indemnify Goodrich for post-closing contamination caused by the Company's operations. The soil and groundwater at the site, which does not include the Company's nearby polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") facility, had been extensively contaminated under Goodrich's operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"), and that predecessor assumed Goodrich's indemnification obligations relating to preexisting contamination. In 2003, litigation arose among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne with respect to the allocation of the cost of remediating contamination at the site. The parties settled this litigation in December 2007 and the case was dismissed. In the settlement the parties agreed that, among other things: (1) PolyOne would pay 100% of the costs (with specified exceptions), net of recoveries or credits from third parties, incurred with respect to environmental issues at the Calvert City site from August 1, 2007 forward; (2) either the Company or PolyOne might, from time to time in the future (but not more than once every five years), institute an arbitration proceeding to adjust that percentage; and (3) the Company and PolyOne would negotiate a new environmental remediation utilities and services agreement to cover the Company's provision to, or on behalf of, PolyOne of certain environmental remediation services at the site. The current environmental remediation activities at the Calvert City site do not have a specified termination date but are expected to last for the foreseeable future. The costs incurred by the Company that have been invoiced to PolyOne to provide the environmental remediation services were $2,210 in 2015. By letter dated March 16, 2010, PolyOne notified the Company that it was initiating an arbitration proceeding under the settlement agreement. In this proceeding, PolyOne sought to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $1,400 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. In December 2015, the arbitration panel dismissed the proceeding with prejudice. In a separate proceeding in Ohio state court, the Company is seeking certain insurance documents from PolyOne. State Administrative Proceedings. There are several administrative proceedings in Kentucky involving the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne related to the same manufacturing site in Calvert City. In 2003, the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (the "Cabinet") re-issued Goodrich's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") permit which requires Goodrich to remediate contamination at the Calvert City manufacturing site. Both Goodrich and PolyOne challenged various terms of the permit in an attempt to shift Goodrich's clean-up obligations under the permit to the Company. The Company intervened in the proceedings. The Cabinet has suspended all corrective action under the RCRA permit in deference to a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RIFS") being conducted, under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), pursuant to an Administrative Settlement Agreement ("AOC"), which became effective on December 9, 2009. See "Federal Administrative Proceedings" below. The proceedings have been postponed. Periodic status conferences will be held to evaluate whether additional proceedings will be required. Federal Administrative Proceedings. In May 2009, the Cabinet sent a letter to the EPA requesting the EPA's assistance in addressing contamination at the Calvert City site under CERCLA. In its response to the Cabinet also in May 2009, the EPA stated that it concurred with the Cabinet's request and would incorporate work previously conducted under the Cabinet's RCRA authority into the EPA's cleanup efforts under CERCLA. Since 1983, the EPA has been addressing contamination at an abandoned landfill adjacent to the Company's plant which had been operated by Goodrich and which was being remediated pursuant to CERCLA. The EPA has directed Goodrich and PolyOne to conduct additional investigation activities at the landfill and at the Company's plant. In June 2009, the EPA notified the Company that the Company may have potential liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA at its plant site. Liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA is strict and joint and several. The EPA also identified Goodrich and PolyOne, among others, as potentially responsible parties at the plant site. The Company negotiated, in conjunction with the other potentially responsible parties, an AOC and an order to conduct a RIFS. On July 12, 2013, the parties submitted separate draft RIFS reports to the EPA. The EPA has hired a contractor to complete the remedial investigation report. Monetary Relief. Except as noted above with respect to the settlement of the contract litigation among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne, none of the court, the Cabinet nor the EPA has established any allocation of the costs of remediation among the various parties that are involved in the judicial and administrative proceedings discussed above. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the loss or reasonable possible loss, if any, on the Company's financial statements that could result from the resolution of these proceedings. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the site would likely be spread out over an extended period. As a result, the Company believes it is unlikely that any remediation costs allocable to it will be material in terms of expenditures made in any individual reporting period. Potential Flare Modifications. For several years, the EPA has been conducting an enforcement initiative against petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants with respect to emissions from flares. A number of companies have entered into consent agreements with the EPA requiring both modifications to reduce flare emissions and the installation of additional equipment to better track flare operations and emissions. On April 21, 2014, the Company received a Clean Air Act Section 114 Information Request from the EPA which sought information regarding flares at the Calvert City and Lake Charles, Louisiana facilities. The EPA has informed the Company that the information provided leads the EPA to believe that some of the flares are out of compliance with applicable standards. The EPA has demanded that the Company conduct additional flare sampling and provide supplemental information. The Company is currently in negotiations with the EPA regarding these demands. The EPA has indicated that it is seeking a consent decree that would obligate the Company to take corrective actions relating to the alleged noncompliance. The Company has not agreed that any flares are out of compliance or that any corrective actions are warranted. Depending on the outcome of the Company's negotiations with the EPA, additional controls on emissions from its flares may be required and these could result in increased capital and operating costs. Louisiana Notice of Violations. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") has issued notices of violations ("NOVs") regarding the Company's assets for various air compliance issues. The Company is working with LDEQ to settle these claims, and a global settlement of all claims is being discussed. The Company has reached a verbal agreement with the LDEQ to settle certain of the NOVs in two separate settlements for a combined $192 in civil penalties. The Company does not believe that any settlements for the remaining NOVs will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations that can impose civil and criminal sanctions and that may require it to mitigate the effects of contamination caused by the release or disposal of hazardous substances into the environment. Under one law, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), an owner or operator of property may be held strictly liable for remediating contamination without regard to whether that person caused the contamination, and without regard to whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. Because several of the Company's production sites have a history of industrial use, it is impossible to predict precisely what effect these legal requirements will have on the Company.

European Regulations. Under the Industrial Emission Directive ("IED"), European Union member state governments are expected to adopt rules and implement environmental permitting programs relating to air, water and waste for industrial facilities. In this context, concepts such as BAT ("best available technique") are being explored. Future implementation of these concepts may result in technical modifications in the Company's European facilities. In addition, under the Environmental Liability Directive, European Union member states can require the remediation of soil and groundwater contamination in certain circumstances, under the "polluter pays principle." The Company is unable to predict the impact these requirements and concepts may have on its future costs of compliance.

Contract Disputes with Goodrich and PolyOne. In connection with the 1990 and 1997 acquisitions of the Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich") chemical manufacturing facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, Goodrich agreed to indemnify the Company for any liabilities related to preexisting contamination at the site. For its part, the Company agreed to indemnify Goodrich for post-closing contamination caused by the Company's operations. The soil and groundwater at the site, which does not include the Company's nearby polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") facility, had been extensively contaminated under Goodrich's operations. In 1993, Goodrich spun off the predecessor of PolyOne Corporation ("PolyOne"), and that predecessor assumed Goodrich's indemnification obligations relating to preexisting contamination.

In 2003, litigation arose among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne with respect to the allocation of the cost of remediating contamination at the site. The parties settled this litigation in December 2007 and the case was dismissed. In the settlement the parties agreed that, among other things: (1) PolyOne would pay 100% of the costs (with specified exceptions), net of recoveries or credits from third parties, incurred with respect to environmental issues at the Calvert City site from August 1, 2007 forward; (2) either the Company or PolyOne might, from time to time in the future (but not more than once every five years), institute an arbitration proceeding to adjust that percentage; and (3) the Company and PolyOne would negotiate a new environmental remediation utilities and services agreement to cover the Company's provision to, or on behalf of, PolyOne of certain environmental remediation services at the site. The current environmental remediation activities at the Calvert City site do not have a specified termination date but are expected to last for the foreseeable future. The costs incurred by the Company that have been invoiced to PolyOne to provide the environmental remediation services were $2,210 in 2015. By letter dated March 16, 2010, PolyOne notified the Company that it was initiating an arbitration proceeding under the settlement agreement. In this proceeding, PolyOne sought to readjust the percentage allocation of costs and to recover approximately $1,400 from the Company in reimbursement of previously paid remediation costs. In December 2015, the arbitration panel dismissed the proceeding with prejudice. In a separate proceeding in Ohio state court, the Company is seeking certain insurance documents from PolyOne.

State Administrative Proceedings. There are several administrative proceedings in Kentucky involving the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne related to the same manufacturing site in Calvert City. In 2003, the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (the "Cabinet") re-issued Goodrich's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") permit which requires Goodrich to remediate contamination at the Calvert City manufacturing site. Both Goodrich and PolyOne challenged various terms of the permit in an attempt to shift Goodrich's clean-up obligations under the permit to the Company. The Company intervened in the proceedings. The Cabinet has suspended all corrective action under the RCRA permit in deference to a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RIFS") being conducted, under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), pursuant to an Administrative Settlement Agreement ("AOC"), which became effective on December 9, 2009. See "Federal Administrative Proceedings" below. The proceedings have been postponed. Periodic status conferences will be held to evaluate whether additional proceedings will be required.

Federal Administrative Proceedings. In May 2009, the Cabinet sent a letter to the EPA requesting the EPA's assistance in addressing contamination at the Calvert City site under CERCLA. In its response to the Cabinet also in May 2009, the EPA stated that it concurred with the Cabinet's request and would incorporate work previously conducted under the Cabinet's RCRA authority into the EPA's cleanup efforts under CERCLA. Since 1983, the EPA has been addressing contamination at an abandoned landfill adjacent to the Company's plant which had been operated by Goodrich and which was being remediated pursuant to CERCLA. The EPA has directed Goodrich and PolyOne to conduct additional investigation activities at the landfill and at the Company's plant. In June 2009, the EPA notified the Company that the Company may have potential liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA at its plant site. Liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA is strict and joint and several. The EPA also identified Goodrich and PolyOne, among others, as potentially responsible parties at the plant site. The Company negotiated, in conjunction with the other potentially responsible parties, an AOC and an order to conduct a RIFS. On July 12, 2013, the parties submitted separate draft RIFS reports to the EPA. The EPA has hired a contractor to complete the remedial investigation report.

Monetary Relief. Except as noted above with respect to the settlement of the contract litigation among the Company, Goodrich and PolyOne, none of the court, the Cabinet nor the EPA has established any allocation of the costs of remediation among the various parties that are involved in the judicial and administrative proceedings discussed above. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the loss or reasonable possible loss, if any, on the Company's financial statements that could result from the resolution of these proceedings. Any cash expenditures that the Company might incur in the future with respect to the remediation of contamination at the site would likely be spread out over an extended period. As a result, the Company believes it is unlikely that any remediation costs allocable to it will be material in terms of expenditures made in any individual reporting period.

Potential Flare Modifications. For several years, the EPA has been conducting an enforcement initiative against petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants with respect to emissions from flares. A number of companies have entered into consent agreements with the EPA requiring both modifications to reduce flare emissions and the installation of additional equipment to better track flare operations and emissions. On April 21, 2014, the Company received a Clean Air Act Section 114 Information Request from the EPA which sought information regarding flares at the Calvert City and Lake Charles, Louisiana facilities. The EPA has informed the Company that the information provided leads the EPA to believe that some of the flares are out of compliance with applicable standards. The EPA has demanded that the Company conduct additional flare sampling and provide supplemental information. The Company is currently in negotiations with the EPA regarding these demands. The EPA has indicated that it is seeking a consent decree that would obligate the Company to take corrective actions relating to the alleged noncompliance. The Company has not agreed that any flares are out of compliance or that any corrective actions are warranted. Depending on the outcome of the Company's negotiations with the EPA, additional controls on emissions from its flares may be required and these could result in increased capital and operating costs.

Louisiana Notice of Violations. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") has issued notices of violations ("NOVs") regarding the Company's assets for various air compliance issues. The Company is working with LDEQ to settle these claims, and a global settlement of all claims is being discussed. The Company has reached a verbal agreement with the LDEQ to settle certain of the NOVs in two separate settlements for a combined $192 in civil penalties. The Company does not believe that any settlements for the remaining NOVs will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.