Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	9. 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, after another name change, 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. In September 2015, a subsidiary of the Company, Buckhorn, Inc. (“Buckhorn”) received a notice letter and related documents from EPA (the “Notice Letter”) formally informing Buckhorn that it considers it to be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site. As a result of this Notice Letter, Buckhorn and the Company are engaged in negotiations with EPA with respect to a draft Administrative Order proposed by EPA for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the site to determine the extent of remediation necessary and the screening of alternatives. The Company recognized expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a RI/FS. As part of the Notice Letter, EPA also made a claim for approximately $1.6 million in past costs for actions it claims it has taken in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site since 1993. These costs include approximately $0.5 million for an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site completed by the EPA in November 2011. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. The Company currently expects to challenge EPA's past cost claims. The Company reserved an additional $1.3 million in the third quarter of 2015 related to the EPA claim. Total payments of approximately $1.3 million have been made since 2011 and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited), which brings the total accrued balance related to this matter to $1.9 million at March 31, 2016. As negotiations with the EPA proceed with respect to the RI/FS, it is possible that adjustments to the aforementioned reserves 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 negotiations with EPA, 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 remedial actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs that may be named as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, we have not accrued for remediation costs in connection with this site as we are unable to estimate the liability, given the circumstances referred to above, including the fact the final remediation strategy has not yet been determined. Guadelupe River Watershed A number of parties, including the Company and its subsidiary, Buckhorn, were alleged by trustee agencies of the United States and the State of California, as a successor to NIMCC to be responsible for natural resource damages due to environmental contamination of areas in and around the Guadalupe River Watershed region in Santa Clara County, California (“County”). In 2005, Buckhorn and the Company, without admitting liability or chain of ownership of NIMCC, negotiated an agreement with the County, as well as with other third parties identified, to resolve the natural resource damages claim. The agreement settles claims against the Company in exchange for cash payment equal to one-half of the cost to implement a certain environmentally beneficial project at and near the impacted location. At the time of the agreement, the Company recognized expense of $0.8 million representing its share of the initial estimated project costs, of which $0.3 million has been paid to date resulting in a remaining accrual of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2016. The project has not yet been implemented though significant work on design and planning has been performed. The Company was notified in April 2016 by the County that the originally estimated cost of $1.6 million to implement the project may no longer be appropriate and has provided a preliminary revised estimate of between $3.3 million and $4.4 million. The Company has requested additional information from the County to evaluate the revised estimate and determine whether there are any alternatives to the current project design and proposed construction methods, all of which remain subject to regulatory approval. At this point in time, the Company does not have sufficient information to confirm a reliable estimate of additional costs, if any, for this matter as discussed above. It is reasonably possible that we could incur additional costs in excess of the amount accrued at March 31, 2016. However, such additional costs, if any, cannot be currently estimated. In addition, the Company may have defenses or claims against the County that could reduce or offset its obligation for reimbursement of some of these potential additional costs. With the assistance of environmental consultants, the Company will closely monitor this matter and will continue to assess its reserves as additional information becomes available. After many delays, field work on the project is expected to commence in late 2017 to be completed in 2018. 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. Buckhorn believed it was not responsible for any of the judgment because it was not a party to the Orbis license. Despite this belief, the Company recorded expense of $3.0 million during the third quarter of 2014 for the entire amount of the unpaid judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against Buckhorn on July 2, 2015, and found that Buckhorn was not liable to Orbis for any portion of the judgment entered in favor of Orbis. Accordingly, Myers reversed the accrual of $3.0 million during the second quarter of 2015, which was reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Orbis' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. All opportunities for Orbis to appeal have expired. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has now released Buckhorn’s appellate bond. Buckhorn is also pursuing legal action against SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell and related claims. That case is now pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 12, 2016, SAS and SASS B.V. filed their answer and counterclaim to the complaint in the New York Court, seeking to recover from Buckhorn $1.5 million plus additional interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. Buckhorn believes it has sound defenses to this claim (which represents the amount SAS paid to Orbis in settlement of its claim for attorneys’ fees in Ohio litigation). The New York litigation is in its early stages and no discovery has commenced. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay any judgment against it and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS was in financial distress while SASS B.V. was financially stable. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial status, it is not known at this time what the likelihood of recovering from SAS (or SASS B.V.) would be in the event that there is a favorable outcome for Buckhorn in the New York court. 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.

9. 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, after another name change, 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.

In September 2015, a subsidiary of the Company, Buckhorn, Inc. (“Buckhorn”) received a notice letter and related documents from EPA (the “Notice Letter”) formally informing Buckhorn that it considers it to be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site. As a result of this Notice Letter, Buckhorn and the Company are engaged in negotiations with EPA with respect to a draft Administrative Order proposed by EPA for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the site to determine the extent of remediation necessary and the screening of alternatives. The Company recognized expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a RI/FS. As part of the Notice Letter, EPA also made a claim for approximately $1.6 million in past costs for actions it claims it has taken in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site since 1993. These costs include approximately $0.5 million for an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site completed by the EPA in November 2011. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. The Company currently expects to challenge EPA's past cost claims. The Company reserved an additional $1.3 million in the third quarter of 2015 related to the EPA claim. Total payments of approximately $1.3 million have been made since 2011 and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position (Unaudited), which brings the total accrued balance related to this matter to $1.9 million at March 31, 2016. As negotiations with the EPA proceed with respect to the RI/FS, it is possible that adjustments to the aforementioned reserves 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 negotiations with EPA, 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 remedial actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs that may be named as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, we have not accrued for remediation costs in connection with this site as we are unable to estimate the liability, given the circumstances referred to above, including the fact the final remediation strategy has not yet been determined.

Guadelupe River Watershed

A number of parties, including the Company and its subsidiary, Buckhorn, were alleged by trustee agencies of the United States and the State of California, as a successor to NIMCC to be responsible for natural resource damages due to environmental contamination of areas in and around the Guadalupe River Watershed region in Santa Clara County, California (“County”). In 2005, Buckhorn and the Company, without admitting liability or chain of ownership of NIMCC, negotiated an agreement with the County, as well as with other third parties identified, to resolve the natural resource damages claim. The agreement settles claims against the Company in exchange for cash payment equal to one-half of the cost to implement a certain environmentally beneficial project at and near the impacted location. At the time of the agreement, the Company recognized expense of $0.8 million representing its share of the initial estimated project costs, of which $0.3 million has been paid to date resulting in a remaining accrual of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2016. The project has not yet been implemented though significant work on design and planning has been performed. The Company was notified in April 2016 by the County that the originally estimated cost of $1.6 million to implement the project may no longer be appropriate and has provided a preliminary revised estimate of between $3.3 million and $4.4 million. The Company has requested additional information from the County to evaluate the revised estimate and determine whether there are any alternatives to the current project design and proposed construction methods, all of which remain subject to regulatory approval. At this point in time, the Company does not have sufficient information to confirm a reliable estimate of additional costs, if any, for this matter as discussed above. It is reasonably possible that we could incur additional costs in excess of the amount accrued at March 31, 2016. However, such additional costs, if any, cannot be currently estimated. In addition, the Company may have defenses or claims against the County that could reduce or offset its obligation for reimbursement of some of these potential additional costs. With the assistance of environmental consultants, the Company will closely monitor this matter and will continue to assess its reserves as additional information becomes available. After many delays, field work on the project is expected to commence in late 2017 to be completed in 2018.

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. Buckhorn believed it was not responsible for any of the judgment because it was not a party to the Orbis license. Despite this belief, the Company recorded expense of $3.0 million during the third quarter of 2014 for the entire amount of the unpaid judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against Buckhorn on July 2, 2015, and found that Buckhorn was not liable to Orbis for any portion of the judgment entered in favor of Orbis. Accordingly, Myers reversed the accrual of $3.0 million during the second quarter of 2015, which was reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Orbis' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. All opportunities for Orbis to appeal have expired. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has now released Buckhorn’s appellate bond. Buckhorn is also pursuing legal action against SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell and related claims. That case is now pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 12, 2016, SAS and SASS B.V. filed their answer and counterclaim to the complaint in the New York Court, seeking to recover from Buckhorn $1.5 million plus additional interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. Buckhorn believes it has sound defenses to this claim (which represents the amount SAS paid to Orbis in settlement of its claim for attorneys’ fees in Ohio litigation). The New York litigation is in its early stages and no discovery has commenced. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay any judgment against it and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS was in financial distress while SASS B.V. was financially stable. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial status, it is not known at this time what the likelihood of recovering from SAS (or SASS B.V.) would be in the event that there is a favorable outcome for Buckhorn in the New York court.

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.