Environmental Matters	12 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2014
Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]
Environmental Matters	Environmental Matters General. Federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations impose various restrictions and controls on the storage, use and discharge of certain materials, chemicals and gases used in semiconductor manufacturing processes, and on the operation of the Company's facilities and equipment. The Company believes it uses reasonable efforts to maintain a system of compliance and controls for these laws and regulations. Despite its efforts and controls, from time to time, issues may arise with respect to these matters. Additionally, under some of these laws and regulations, the Company could be held financially responsible for remedial measures if properties are contaminated or if waste is sent to a landfill or recycling facility that becomes contaminated. Also, the Company may be subject to common law claims if released substances damage or harm third parties. The Company cannot make assurances that changes in environmental laws and regulations will not require additional investments in capital equipment and the implementation of additional compliance programs in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, as could any failure by or violation of the Company to comply with any prior, current or future environmental laws and regulations. Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. et al. v. Omega Chemical PRP Group, LLC et al. In November 2007, the Company was named as one of approximately 100 defendants in Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. et al. v. Omega Chemical PRP Group, LLC et al., No. EDCV07-1471 (TJH) (JWJx) (C.D. Cal.) (the "Angeles Case"). Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. and related entities ("Plaintiffs") own or operate a facility (the "Angeles Facility") down gradient of the Omega Chemical Superfund Site (the "Omega Site") in Whittier, California. Numerous parties, including the Company, allegedly disposed of wastes at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs claim that contaminants from the Omega Site migrated in groundwater from the Omega Site to the Angeles Facility, thereby causing damage to the Angeles Facility. In addition, they claim that the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") considers them to be responsible for the groundwater plume near the Angeles Facility, which Plaintiffs contend was caused by disposal activities at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs filed claims based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), nuisance and trespass, and also seek declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek to require the defendants to investigate and clean-up the contamination and to recover damages. The case has been stayed by the court pending the Environmental Protection Agency's completion of its remedial investigation. The Company previously entered into a settlement with other parties associated with the Omega Site pursuant to which the Company paid money in exchange for an agreement to defend and indemnify the Company with regard to certain environmental claims (the "Omega Indemnification"). The Company believes that much, if not all, of the risks associated with the Angeles Case should be covered by the Omega Indemnification, and otherwise intends to vigorously defend against all of the claims asserted by the various parties in respect of the property. Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. ("Rachelle"), a subsidiary of the Company that discontinued operations in 1986, was named a potentially responsible party ("PRP") in connection with the investigation by the EPA of the disposal of allegedly hazardous substances at a major superfund site in Monterey Park, California ("OII Site"). The Company has taken the position that none of the wastes generated by Rachelle were hazardous. Counsel for Rachelle received a letter dated August 2001 from the U.S. Department of Justice, directed to all or substantially all PRPs for the OII Site, offering to settle claims against such parties for all work performed through and including the final remedy for the OII Site. The offer required a payment from Rachelle in the amount of approximately $9.3 million in order to take advantage of the settlement. Rachelle did not accept the offer. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of the claims asserted in respect of the property and the Company cannot determine at this time what, if any, further regulatory actions may be taken in the future in respect of Rachelle. Other Environmental Matters. In addition to the foregoing, the Company has been either named as a potentially responsible party or made voluntary disclosures, as described below: (i)In February 2012, the Company notified the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and local districts that the Company’s Temecula, California manufacturing facility previously shipped wastes for disposal offsite as non-hazardous wastes which may have contained fluoride levels considered to constitute hazardous waste under California regulations. The Company has received a notice of minor administrative violation from one of the local districts without the assessment of any penalty, but the Company has not as yet been contacted by all applicable regulatory authorities, including the DTSC; (ii)In December 2010, the Company received notice from a property owner asserting that the Company was a potentially responsible party for the remediation of hazardous materials allegedly discovered by that owner at a property in El Segundo, California, formerly owned and leased by the Company. The Company had also been contacted by the DTSC in connection with that 2010 notice. In July 2012, the Company received notice from a subsequent owner of that property seeking reimbursement of investigation costs and increased construction costs allegedly resulting from the presence of hazardous materials at the property; (iii)At around the time of the Company’s 2007 divestiture of the Company’s Power Control Systems business to Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., the Company advised appropriate governmental authorities of the discovery of certain chemical compounds in the groundwater underneath one of the Company's manufacturing plants in Italy that was subject to the sale. In 2010, in response to inquiries from the authority requiring a confirmation of intention to proceed with a plan of characterization in relation to the site, the Company restated its position that it had not committed to take further action. In October 2012, local authorities contacted the current site owner suggesting that additional groundwater testing should take place and that testing took place at the end of 2012. The Company has not been contacted by applicable authorities since that testing; and (iv)In June 2001, the Company received a letter from a law firm representing UDT Sensors, Inc. ("UDT") relating to environmental contamination (chlorinated solvents such as trichlorethene) purportedly found in UDT's properties in Hawthorne, California. The letter alleges that the Company operated a manufacturing business at that location in the 1970's and/or 1980's and that it may have liability in connection with the claimed contamination. The Company intends to defend vigorously each of the foregoing matters, and to the extent the matter involves regulatory agencies it is too early to assess what, if any, penalties may be asserted or actions taken in the future.

Environmental Matters

General. Federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations impose various restrictions and controls on the storage, use and discharge of certain materials, chemicals and gases used in semiconductor manufacturing processes, and on the operation of the Company's facilities and equipment. The Company believes it uses reasonable efforts to maintain a system of compliance and controls for these laws and regulations. Despite its efforts and controls, from time to time, issues may arise with respect to these matters. Additionally, under some of these laws and regulations, the Company could be held financially responsible for remedial measures if properties are contaminated or if waste is sent to a landfill or recycling facility that becomes contaminated. Also, the Company may be subject to common law claims if released substances damage or harm third parties. The Company cannot make assurances that changes in environmental laws and regulations will not require additional investments in capital equipment and the implementation of additional compliance programs in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, as could any failure by or violation of the Company to comply with any prior, current or future environmental laws and regulations.

Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. et al. v. Omega Chemical PRP Group, LLC et al. In November 2007, the Company was named as one of approximately 100 defendants in Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. et al. v. Omega Chemical PRP Group, LLC et al., No. EDCV07-1471 (TJH) (JWJx) (C.D. Cal.) (the "Angeles Case"). Angeles Chemical Company, Inc. and related entities ("Plaintiffs") own or operate a facility (the "Angeles Facility") down gradient of the Omega Chemical Superfund Site (the "Omega Site") in Whittier, California. Numerous parties, including the Company, allegedly disposed of wastes at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs claim that contaminants from the Omega Site migrated in groundwater from the Omega Site to the Angeles Facility, thereby causing damage to the Angeles Facility. In addition, they claim that the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") considers them to be responsible for the groundwater plume near the Angeles Facility, which Plaintiffs contend was caused by disposal activities at the Omega Site. Plaintiffs filed claims based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), nuisance and trespass, and also seek declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek to require the defendants to investigate and clean-up the contamination and to recover damages. The case has been stayed by the court pending the Environmental Protection Agency's completion of its remedial investigation. The Company previously entered into a settlement with other parties associated with the Omega Site pursuant to which the Company paid money in exchange for an agreement to defend and indemnify the Company with regard to certain environmental claims (the "Omega Indemnification"). The Company believes that much, if not all, of the risks associated with the Angeles Case should be covered by the Omega Indemnification, and otherwise intends to vigorously defend against all of the claims asserted by the various parties in respect of the property.

Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. Rachelle Laboratories, Inc. ("Rachelle"), a subsidiary of the Company that discontinued operations in 1986, was named a potentially responsible party ("PRP") in connection with the investigation by the EPA of the disposal of allegedly hazardous substances at a major superfund site in Monterey Park, California ("OII Site"). The Company has taken the position that none of the wastes generated by Rachelle were hazardous. Counsel for Rachelle received a letter dated August 2001 from the U.S. Department of Justice, directed to all or substantially all PRPs for the OII Site, offering to settle claims against such parties for all work performed through and including the final remedy for the OII Site. The offer required a payment from Rachelle in the amount of approximately $9.3 million in order to take advantage of the settlement. Rachelle did not accept the offer. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of the claims asserted in respect of the property and the Company cannot determine at this time what, if any, further regulatory actions may be taken in the future in respect of Rachelle.

Other Environmental Matters. In addition to the foregoing, the Company has been either named as a potentially responsible party or made voluntary disclosures, as described below:

(i)In February 2012, the Company notified the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and local districts that the Company’s Temecula, California manufacturing facility previously shipped wastes for disposal offsite as non-hazardous wastes which may have contained fluoride levels considered to constitute hazardous waste under California regulations. The Company has received a notice of minor administrative violation from one of the local districts without the assessment of any penalty, but the Company has not as yet been contacted by all applicable regulatory authorities, including the DTSC;

(ii)In December 2010, the Company received notice from a property owner asserting that the Company was a potentially responsible party for the remediation of hazardous materials allegedly discovered by that owner at a property in El Segundo, California, formerly owned and leased by the Company. The Company had also been contacted by the DTSC in connection with that 2010 notice. In July 2012, the Company received notice from a subsequent owner of that property seeking reimbursement of investigation costs and increased construction costs allegedly resulting from the presence of hazardous materials at the property;

(iii)At around the time of the Company’s 2007 divestiture of the Company’s Power Control Systems business to Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., the Company advised appropriate governmental authorities of the discovery of certain chemical compounds in the groundwater underneath one of the Company's manufacturing plants in Italy that was subject to the sale. In 2010, in response to inquiries from the authority requiring a confirmation of intention to proceed with a plan of characterization in relation to the site, the Company restated its position that it had not committed to take further action. In October 2012, local authorities contacted the current site owner suggesting that additional groundwater testing should take place and that testing took place at the end of 2012. The Company has not been contacted by applicable authorities since that testing; and

(iv)In June 2001, the Company received a letter from a law firm representing UDT Sensors, Inc. ("UDT") relating to environmental contamination (chlorinated solvents such as trichlorethene) purportedly found in UDT's properties in Hawthorne, California. The letter alleges that the Company operated a manufacturing business at that location in the 1970's and/or 1980's and that it may have liability in connection with the claimed contamination.

The Company intends to defend vigorously each of the foregoing matters, and to the extent the matter involves regulatory agencies it is too early to assess what, if any, penalties may be asserted or actions taken in the future.