Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and a party to various other legal proceedings, in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered in whole or in part by insurance. New Idria Mercury Mine Effective October 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the New Idria Mercury Mine site located near Hollister, California to the Superfund National Priorities List because of alleged contaminants discharged to California waterways. The New Idria Quicksilver Mining Company, founded in 1936, and later renamed the New Idria Mining & Chemical Company ("NIMCC") owned and/or operated the New Idria Mine through 1976. In 1981 NIMCC was merged into Buckhorn Metal Products Inc. which was subsequently acquired by Myers Industries in 1987. The EPA contends that past mining operations have resulted in mercury contamination and acid mine drainage at the mine site, in the San Carlos Creek, Silver Creek and a portion of Panoche Creek and that other downstream locations may also be impacted. As of the date of this disclosure, no formal claim or allegation relating to the New Idria Mine Site against the Company or its subsidiary Buckhorn Inc. ("Buckhorn") has been received. However, since Buckhorn may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at the New Idria Mercury Mine, the Company recognized an expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a remedial investigation and feasibility study to determine the extent of remediation and the screening of alternatives. Payments of approximately $0.7 million have been incurred and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of September 30, 2014. As investigation and remediation proceed, it is likely that adjustments to the reserved expense will be necessary to reflect new information. Estimates of the Company’s liability are based on current facts, laws, regulations and technology. Estimates of the Company’s environmental liabilities are further subject to uncertainties regarding the nature and extent of site contamination, the range of remediation alternatives available, evolving remediation standards, imprecise engineering evaluation and cost estimates, the extent of corrective actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, further remediation cost estimates are not known and have not been prepared. In November 2011 the EPA completed an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. According to informal reports, EPA’s interim removal project costs were approximately $0.5 million. It is possible that at some future date the EPA will seek recovery of the costs of this work and other past costs from PRPs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board A number of parties, including the Company and its subsidiary, Buckhorn, were identified in a planning document adopted in October 2008 by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (“RWQCB”). The planning document relates to the presence of mercury, including amounts contained in mining wastes, in and around the Guadalupe River Watershed (“Watershed”) region in Santa Clara County, California and specifically to the development of a "total maximum daily load" for mercury deposits into the Watershed. Buckhorn has previously been alleged to be a successor in interest to NIMCC, which owned property and performed mining operations in a portion of the Watershed area. The Company has not been contacted by the RWQCB or by other parties who have been involved in Watershed clean-up efforts that have been initiated as a result of the adoption of this planning document. Although assertion of a claim by the RWQCB or another party involved in this clean up effort is reasonably possible, it is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any obligation the Company may incur for these cleanup efforts within the Watershed region, or whether such cost would be material to the Company’s financial statements. When management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable of occurrence than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters will be assessed and the estimates will be revised, if necessary. Based on current available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or overall trends in our results of operations. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or in future periods. Other Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems, Inc. (“SAS”) were plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Orbis Corp. and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (“Orbis”) for alleged breach by Orbis of an exclusive patent license agreement from SAS to Buckhorn. SAS is an affiliate of Schoeller Arca Systems Services B.V. (“SASS B.V.”), a Dutch company. SAS manufactures and sells plastic returnable packaging systems for material handling. In the course of the litigation, it was discovered that SAS had given a patent license agreement to a predecessor of Orbis that pre-dated the one that SAS sold to Buckhorn. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Orbis, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs to Orbis in the amount of $3.1 million, plus interest and costs. In May 2014, Orbis made demand to SAS that SAS pay the judgment in full, and subsequently in July 2014, Orbis made the same demand to Buckhorn. Although the range of exposure is $0 - $3.1 million, plus interest, Buckhorn’s responsibility as a co-judgment debtor is not specified. Buckhorn believes it is not responsible for any of the legal fee award because it is not a party to the Orbis license and will continue to aggressively pursue any and all legal actions both with respect to appealing the award requesting SAS be named solely responsible for payment of the judgment, as well as pursuing SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay the judgment and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS is in financial distress and while SASS B.V is financially stable, the award is against SAS, not SASS B.V. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial ability to meet the obligation and the judgment is joint and several, Myers has recorded an expense in the quarter for the entire amount of the unpaid judgment, despite the belief we will ultimately be successful in the appeal and suing SAS and SASS B.V. The matter is presently under appeal and Buckhorn is also suing SAS and SASS B.V.

Contingencies

The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and a party to various other legal proceedings, in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered in whole or in part by insurance.

New Idria Mercury Mine

Effective October 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the New Idria Mercury Mine site located near Hollister, California to the Superfund National Priorities List because of alleged contaminants discharged to California waterways. The New Idria Quicksilver Mining Company, founded in 1936, and later renamed the New Idria Mining & Chemical Company ("NIMCC") owned and/or operated the New Idria Mine through 1976. In 1981 NIMCC was merged into Buckhorn Metal Products Inc. which was subsequently acquired by Myers Industries in 1987. The EPA contends that past mining operations have resulted in mercury contamination and acid mine drainage at the mine site, in the San Carlos Creek, Silver Creek and a portion of Panoche Creek and that other downstream locations may also be impacted.

As of the date of this disclosure, no formal claim or allegation relating to the New Idria Mine Site against the Company or its subsidiary Buckhorn Inc. ("Buckhorn") has been received. However, since Buckhorn may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at the New Idria Mercury Mine, the Company recognized an expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a remedial investigation and feasibility study to determine the extent of remediation and the screening of alternatives. Payments of approximately $0.7 million have been incurred and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of September 30, 2014. As investigation and remediation proceed, it is likely that adjustments to the reserved expense will be necessary to reflect new information. Estimates of the Company’s liability are based on current facts, laws, regulations and technology. Estimates of the Company’s environmental liabilities are further subject to uncertainties regarding the nature and extent of site contamination, the range of remediation alternatives available, evolving remediation standards, imprecise engineering evaluation and cost estimates, the extent of corrective actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, further remediation cost estimates are not known and have not been prepared.

In November 2011 the EPA completed an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. According to informal reports, EPA’s interim removal project costs were approximately $0.5 million. It is possible that at some future date the EPA will seek recovery of the costs of this work and other past costs from PRPs.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

A number of parties, including the Company and its subsidiary, Buckhorn, were identified in a planning document adopted in October 2008 by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (“RWQCB”). The planning document relates to the presence of mercury, including amounts contained in mining wastes, in and around the Guadalupe River Watershed (“Watershed”) region in Santa Clara County, California and specifically to the development of a "total maximum daily load" for mercury deposits into the Watershed. Buckhorn has previously been alleged to be a successor in interest to NIMCC, which owned property and performed mining operations in a portion of the Watershed area. The Company has not been contacted by the RWQCB or by other parties who have been involved in Watershed clean-up efforts that have been initiated as a result of the adoption of this planning document. Although assertion of a claim by the RWQCB or another party involved in this clean up effort is reasonably possible, it is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any obligation the Company may incur for these cleanup efforts within the Watershed region, or whether such cost would be material to the Company’s financial statements.

When management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable of occurrence than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters will be assessed and the estimates will be revised, if necessary.

Based on current available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or overall trends in our results of operations. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or in future periods.

Other

Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems, Inc. (“SAS”) were plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Orbis Corp. and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (“Orbis”) for alleged breach by Orbis of an exclusive patent license agreement from SAS to Buckhorn. SAS is an affiliate of Schoeller Arca Systems Services B.V. (“SASS B.V.”), a Dutch company. SAS manufactures and sells plastic returnable packaging systems for material handling. In the course of the litigation, it was discovered that SAS had given a patent license agreement to a predecessor of Orbis that pre-dated the one that SAS sold to Buckhorn. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Orbis, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs to Orbis in the amount of $3.1 million, plus interest and costs. In May 2014, Orbis made demand to SAS that SAS pay the judgment in full, and subsequently in July 2014, Orbis made the same demand to Buckhorn. Although the range of exposure is $0 - $3.1 million, plus interest, Buckhorn’s responsibility as a co-judgment debtor is not specified. Buckhorn believes it is not responsible for any of the legal fee award because it is not a party to the Orbis license and will continue to aggressively pursue any and all legal actions both with respect to appealing the award requesting SAS be named solely responsible for payment of the judgment, as well as pursuing SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay the judgment and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS is in financial distress and while SASS B.V is financially stable, the award is against SAS, not SASS B.V. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial ability to meet the obligation and the judgment is joint and several, Myers has recorded an expense in the quarter for the entire amount of the unpaid judgment, despite the belief we will ultimately be successful in the appeal and suing SAS and SASS B.V. The matter is presently under appeal and Buckhorn is also suing SAS and SASS B.V.