Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Tredegar is involved in various stages of investigation and remediation relating to environmental matters at certain current and former plant locations. Where the Company has determined the nature and scope of any required environmental remediation activity, estimates of cleanup costs have been obtained and accrued. As efforts continue to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, additional contingencies may be identified. If additional contingencies are identified, the Company’s practice is to determine the nature and scope of those contingencies, obtain and accrue estimates of the cost of remediation, and perform remediation. The Company does not believe that additional costs that could arise from those activities will have a material adverse effect on its financial position. However, those costs could have a material adverse effect on quarterly or annual operating results at that time. The Company is involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business. After taking into consideration the relevant information, the Company believes that it has sufficiently accrued for probable losses and that the actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position. However, the resolution of the actions in a future period could have a material adverse effect on quarterly or annual operating results at that time. From time to time, the Company enters into transactions with third parties in connection with the sale of assets or businesses in which it agrees to indemnify the buyers or third parties involved in the transaction, or in which the sellers or third parties involved in the transaction agree to indemnify Tredegar, for certain liabilities or risks related to the assets or business. Also, in the ordinary course of its business, the Company may enter into agreements with third parties for the sale of goods or services that may contain indemnification provisions. In the event that an indemnification claim is asserted, liability for indemnification would be subject to an assessment of the underlying facts and circumstances under the terms of the applicable agreement. Further, any indemnification payments may be limited or barred by a monetary cap, a time limitation, or a deductible or basket. For these reasons, Tredegar is unable to estimate the maximum amount of the potential future liability under the indemnity provisions of these agreements. The Company does, however, accrue for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. The Company discloses contingent liabilities if the probability of loss is reasonably possible and material. In November 2009, 3M filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (“Minnesota District Court”) against the Company's film products business. The complaint alleged infringement upon elastic film technology patents held by 3M and sought unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages associated with sales of certain elastic film product lines, which include Film Products’ FabriFlex™ and FlexFeel™ family of products. The Company and 3M settled all pending matters between the parties related to the patent infringement lawsuits filed by 3M. While the Company is confident in its position on the issues, because of the inherent risks associated with litigating patent lawsuits and the significant legal expenses expected to be incurred, the Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or fault of any kind, entered into a non-exclusive worldwide license agreement with 3M on June 26, 2014 for certain elastic film products, and on June 30, 2014, made a one-time, lump-sum payment of $10 million to 3M. 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 anti-dumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The Company contested the applicability of these anti-dumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and a request was filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the anti-dumping 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 anti-dumping duties because Commerce’s scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Purchase Agreement. In December 2014, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to revoke the anti-dumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The revocation, as a result of the vote by the International Trade Commission, was effective as of November 2013. On February 20, 2015, certain U.S. producers of PET Film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

CONTINGENCIES

Tredegar is involved in various stages of investigation and remediation relating to environmental matters at certain current and former plant locations. Where the Company has determined the nature and scope of any required environmental remediation activity, estimates of cleanup costs have been obtained and accrued. As efforts continue to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, additional contingencies may be identified. If additional contingencies are identified, the Company’s practice is to determine the nature and scope of those contingencies, obtain and accrue estimates of the cost of remediation, and perform remediation. The Company does not believe that additional costs that could arise from those activities will have a material adverse effect on its financial position. However, those costs could have a material adverse effect on quarterly or annual operating results at that time.

The Company is involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business. After taking into consideration the relevant information, the Company believes that it has sufficiently accrued for probable losses and that the actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position. However, the resolution of the actions in a future period could have a material adverse effect on quarterly or annual operating results at that time.

From time to time, the Company enters into transactions with third parties in connection with the sale of assets or businesses in which it agrees to indemnify the buyers or third parties involved in the transaction, or in which the sellers or third parties involved in the transaction agree to indemnify Tredegar, for certain liabilities or risks related to the assets or business. Also, in the ordinary course of its business, the Company may enter into agreements with third parties for the sale of goods or services that may contain indemnification provisions. In the event that an indemnification claim is asserted, liability for indemnification would be subject to an assessment of the underlying facts and circumstances under the terms of the applicable agreement. Further, any indemnification payments may be limited or barred by a monetary cap, a time limitation, or a deductible or basket. For these reasons, Tredegar is unable to estimate the maximum amount of the potential future liability under the indemnity provisions of these agreements. The Company does, however, accrue for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. The Company discloses contingent liabilities if the probability of loss is reasonably possible and material.

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

The Company and 3M settled all pending matters between the parties related to the patent infringement lawsuits filed by 3M. While the Company is confident in its position on the issues, because of the inherent risks associated with litigating patent lawsuits and the significant legal expenses expected to be incurred, the Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or fault of any kind, entered into a non-exclusive worldwide license agreement with 3M on June 26, 2014 for certain elastic film products, and on June 30, 2014, made a one-time, lump-sum payment of $10 million to 3M.

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 anti-dumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The Company contested the applicability of these anti-dumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and a request was filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the anti-dumping 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 anti-dumping duties because Commerce’s scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Purchase Agreement. In December 2014, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to revoke the anti-dumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. The revocation, as a result of the vote by the International Trade Commission, was effective as of November 2013. On February 20, 2015, certain U.S. producers of PET Film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission.