Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Aug. 28, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In 2004, Sable Offshore Energy Inc. ("Sable"), as agent for certain owners of the Sable Offshore Energy Project ("Project"), brought an action against various coatings suppliers and application contractors, including the Company and its subsidiary, Ameron B.V., in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada. Sable seeks damages allegedly sustained by it resulting from performance problems with several coating systems used on the Project, including coatings products furnished by the Company and Ameron B.V. All of the co-defendants, other than the Company, Ameron B.V. and an unaffiliated licensee of the Company, have since settled. Sable's originating notice and statement of claim alleged a claim for damages in an unspecified amount. Sable later alleged that its contractual claim for damages based upon a total coatings replacement for the Project was approximately 440,000,000 Canadian dollars. Subsequently, however, Sable sent the Company an alternate claim for a total of 135,500,000 Canadian dollars, which utilized a different method for calculating damages based on the costs allegedly involved in a more limited repair program. The more limited program is purportedly designed only to replace that amount of coating that plaintiffs claim is necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the Project through its anticipated final abandonment date. The Company contests any claim amount and is vigorously defending itself on the merits in this action. This matter is in discovery, and no trial date has yet been established. Based upon the information available at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case. In 2004, BP America Production Company (“BP America”) brought an action against the Company in the 24^th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana in connection with fiberglass pipe sold by the Company for installation in four offshore platforms constructed for BP America. The plaintiff seeks damages allegedly sustained by it resulting from claimed defects in such pipe. BP America's petition as filed alleged a claim against the Company for rescission, products liability, negligence, breach of contract and warranty and for damages in an amount of not less than $20,000,000; but BP America has since reduced its claim to $12,900,000. The Company contests this amount. This matter is in discovery, and no trial date has yet been established. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case. In 2010, Petroleum Polymer Company LLC ("PPC") brought an action against Ameron (Pte) Ltd. ("Ameron Pte"), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, in the Primary Court of Oman. The complaint alleged that Ameron Pte breached the terms of a purchase agreement for its supply of fiberglass pipe to PPC for use in an oil extraction project in Oman. PPC's primary allegation is that a component supplied by Ameron Pte failed during testing, resulting in a failure of a pipe system. PPC asserted damages totaling approximately $20,000,000, including alleged claims for the cost of replacing damaged pipe, recovery of penalties incurred due to the resulting delay in the project, and lost future opportunities. Ameron Pte contests any claim amount and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is able to neither estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case nor the timing of substantive judicial proceedings. The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others. As of August 28, 2011, the Company was a defendant in 21 asbestos-related cases, compared to 20 cases as of May 29, 2011. During the quarter ended August 28, 2011, there were six new asbestos-related cases, five dismissed cases, no settled cases and no judgments; expenses totaled $25,000, and there were no recoveries. The Company incurred expenses from asbestos-related lawsuits of $13,000 during the quarter ended August 29, 2010, and there were no recoveries. During the nine months ended August 28, 2011, the Company incurred expenses of $540,000; and there were no recoveries. The Company incurred expenses of $77,000 and recovered $28,000 in the nine months ended August 29, 2010. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to these cases. In 2008, the Company received from the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) a Requirement to Furnish Information regarding transactions involving certain prohibited countries, including Iran. The Company continues to cooperate fully with OFAC on this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this matter. If the Company violated governmental regulations, material fines and penalties could be imposed. Following the announcement that the Company entered into a merger agreement with NOV in July 2011, three purported class action lawsuits were filed by stockholders on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated stockholders, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, and NOV challenging the proposed merger. The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company and NOV. The lawsuits seek to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, rescissory damages, an accounting, a constructive trust, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest and other equitable relief. The consolidated amended complaint filed in the Delaware cases states that it names the Company as a necessary party in connection with the equitable relief sought in that complaint. The monetary relief sought against the Company is limited to attorneys’ fees and costs, and Management believes that any such relief, if awarded, would be covered by insurance or would not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations. The Company is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the environment and is currently participating in administrative proceedings at several sites under these laws. While the Company finds it difficult to estimate with any certainty the total cost of remediation at the several sites, on the basis of currently available information and reserves provided, the Company believes that the outcome of such environmental regulatory proceedings will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position. In addition, certain other claims, suits and complaints that arise in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against the Company. Management believes that these matters are either adequately reserved, covered by insurance, or would not have a material effect on the Company's financial position, cash flows or results of operations if disposed of unfavorably.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In 2004, Sable Offshore Energy Inc. ("Sable"), as agent for certain owners of the Sable Offshore Energy Project ("Project"), brought an action against various coatings suppliers and application contractors, including the Company and its subsidiary, Ameron B.V., in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada. Sable seeks damages allegedly sustained by it resulting from performance problems with several coating systems used on the Project, including coatings products furnished by the Company and Ameron B.V. All of the co-defendants, other than the Company, Ameron B.V. and an unaffiliated licensee of the Company, have since settled. Sable's originating notice and statement of claim alleged a claim for damages in an unspecified amount. Sable later alleged that its contractual claim for damages based upon a total coatings replacement for the Project was approximately 440,000,000 Canadian dollars. Subsequently, however, Sable sent the Company an alternate claim for a total of 135,500,000 Canadian dollars, which utilized a different method for calculating damages based on the costs allegedly involved in a more limited repair program. The more limited program is purportedly designed only to replace that amount of coating that plaintiffs claim is necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the Project through its anticipated final abandonment date. The Company contests any claim amount and is vigorously defending itself on the merits in this action. This matter is in discovery, and no trial date has yet been established. Based upon the information available at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case.

In 2004, BP America Production Company (“BP America”) brought an action against the Company in the 24^th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana in connection with fiberglass pipe sold by the Company for installation in four offshore platforms constructed for BP America. The plaintiff seeks damages allegedly sustained by it resulting from claimed defects in such pipe. BP America's petition as filed alleged a claim against the Company for rescission, products liability, negligence, breach of contract and warranty and for damages in an amount of not less than $20,000,000; but BP America has since reduced its claim to $12,900,000. The Company contests this amount. This matter is in discovery, and no trial date has yet been established. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case.

In 2010, Petroleum Polymer Company LLC ("PPC") brought an action against Ameron (Pte) Ltd. ("Ameron Pte"), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, in the Primary Court of Oman. The complaint alleged that Ameron Pte breached the terms of a purchase agreement for its supply of fiberglass pipe to PPC for use in an oil extraction project in Oman. PPC's primary allegation is that a component supplied by Ameron Pte failed during testing, resulting in a failure of a pipe system. PPC asserted damages totaling approximately $20,000,000, including alleged claims for the cost of replacing damaged pipe, recovery of penalties incurred due to the resulting delay in the project, and lost future opportunities. Ameron Pte contests any claim amount and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is able to neither estimate the possible range of loss with respect to this case nor the timing of substantive judicial proceedings.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others. As of August 28, 2011, the Company was a defendant in 21 asbestos-related cases, compared to 20 cases as of May 29, 2011. During the quarter ended August 28, 2011, there were six new asbestos-related cases, five dismissed cases, no settled cases and no judgments; expenses totaled $25,000, and there were no recoveries. The Company incurred expenses from asbestos-related lawsuits of $13,000 during the quarter ended August 29, 2010, and there were no recoveries. During the nine months ended August 28, 2011, the Company incurred expenses of $540,000; and there were no recoveries. The Company incurred expenses of $77,000 and recovered $28,000 in the nine months ended August 29, 2010. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to estimate the possible range of loss with respect to these cases.

In 2008, the Company received from the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) a Requirement to Furnish Information regarding transactions involving certain prohibited countries, including Iran. The Company continues to cooperate fully with OFAC on this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. Based upon the information available to it at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this matter. If the Company violated governmental regulations, material fines and penalties could be imposed.

Following the announcement that the Company entered into a merger agreement with NOV in July 2011, three purported class action lawsuits were filed by stockholders on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated stockholders, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, and NOV challenging the proposed merger. The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company and NOV. The lawsuits seek to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, rescissory damages, an accounting, a constructive trust, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest and other equitable relief. The consolidated amended complaint filed in the Delaware cases states that it names the Company as a necessary party in connection with the equitable relief sought in that complaint. The monetary relief sought against the Company is limited to attorneys’ fees and costs, and Management believes that any such relief, if awarded, would be covered by insurance or would not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

The Company is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the environment and is currently participating in administrative proceedings at several sites under these laws. While the Company finds it difficult to estimate with any certainty the total cost of remediation at the several sites, on the basis of currently available information and reserves provided, the Company believes that the outcome of such environmental regulatory proceedings will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position.

In addition, certain other claims, suits and complaints that arise in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against the Company. Management believes that these matters are either adequately reserved, covered by insurance, or would not have a material effect on the Company's financial position, cash flows or results of operations if disposed of unfavorably.