Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	In 2011, Tredegar was notified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) that certain film products exported by Terphane to the U.S. since November 6, 2008 could be subject to duties associated with an antidumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The Company contested the applicability of these antidumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and we filed a request with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. On January 8, 2013, Commerce issued a scope ruling confirming that the films are not subject to the order, provided that Terphane can establish to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs that the performance enhancing layer on those films is greater than 0.00001 inches thick. The films at issue are manufactured to specifications that exceed that threshold. On February 6, 2013, certain U.S. producers of PET film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the scope ruling from Commerce. If U.S. Customs ultimately were to require the collection of antidumping duties because Commerce’s scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Terphane Purchase Agreement. In November 2009, the 3M Company (“3M”) filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (“Minnesota District Court”) against the Company's film products business. The complaint alleges infringement upon elastic film technology patents held by 3M and seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages associated with our sales of certain elastic film product lines, which include our FabriFlex™ and FlexFeel™ family of products. Following the issuance of a “Markman” Memorandum Opinion by the Minnesota District Court in November 2011, 3M filed a stipulation of non-infringement related to this matter in February 2012. 3M subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the “Markman” Memorandum Opinion. In August 2013, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded this patent infringement complaint back to the Minnesota District Court for further consideration. Despite this ruling, the Company believes that it has sufficient defenses to prevail and intends to defend its position vigorously. In the event that 3M does prevail in this matter, the Company's management does not anticipate that any damages awarded to 3M, which would be in the form of a lump sum payment, will be material to our consolidated financial position. The Company expects to incur legal expenses of approximately $3 million in the next 12 to 15 months to defend itself in this matter.

In 2011, Tredegar was notified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) that certain film products exported by Terphane to the U.S. since November 6, 2008 could be subject to duties associated with an antidumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The Company contested the applicability of these antidumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and we filed a request with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. On January 8, 2013, Commerce issued a scope ruling confirming that the films are not subject to the order, provided that Terphane can establish to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs that the performance enhancing layer on those films is greater than 0.00001 inches thick. The films at issue are manufactured to specifications that exceed that threshold. On February 6, 2013, certain U.S. producers of PET film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the scope ruling from Commerce. If U.S. Customs ultimately were to require the collection of antidumping duties because Commerce’s scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Terphane Purchase Agreement.

In November 2009, the 3M Company (“3M”) filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (“Minnesota District Court”) against the Company's film products business. The complaint alleges infringement upon elastic film technology patents held by 3M and seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages associated with our sales of certain elastic film product lines, which include our FabriFlex™ and FlexFeel™ family of products.

Following the issuance of a “Markman” Memorandum Opinion by the Minnesota District Court in November 2011, 3M filed a stipulation of non-infringement related to this matter in February 2012. 3M subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the “Markman” Memorandum Opinion. In August 2013, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded this patent infringement complaint back to the Minnesota District Court for further consideration. Despite this ruling, the Company believes that it has sufficient defenses to prevail and intends to defend its position vigorously. In the event that 3M does prevail in this matter, the Company's management does not anticipate that any damages awarded to 3M, which would be in the form of a lump sum payment, will be material to our consolidated financial position. The Company expects to incur legal expenses of approximately $3 million in the next 12 to 15 months to defend itself in this matter.