Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES We are involved in various stages of investigation and remediation relating to environmental matters at certain current and former plant locations. Where we have determined the nature and scope of any required environmental remediation activity, estimates of cleanup costs have been obtained and accrued. As we continue efforts to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, additional contingencies may be identified. If additional contingencies are identified, our practice is to determine the nature and scope of those contingencies, obtain and accrue estimates of the cost of remediation, and perform remediation. We do not believe that additional costs that could arise from those activities will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, those costs could have a material adverse effect on quarterly or annual operating results at that time. We are involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business. After taking into consideration information we deemed relevant, we believe that we have sufficiently accrued for probable losses and that the actions will not have a material adverse effect on our 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, we enter into transactions with third parties in connection with the sale of assets or businesses in which we agree 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 us, for certain liabilities or risks related to the assets or business. Also, in the ordinary course of our business, we 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, we are unable to estimate the maximum potential amount of the potential future liability under the indemnity provisions of these agreements. We do, 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. We disclose contingent liabilities if the probability of loss is reasonably possible and material. 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 our 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 then 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, we believe that we have sufficient defenses to prevail, and we intend to defend our position vigorously. In the event that we do not prevail in this matter, we do 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. We expect to incur legal expenses of approximately $3 million in the next 12 to 18 months as we defend against this matter. In 2011, we were 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. We 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 Purchase Agreement.

CONTINGENCIES

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

We are involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business. After taking into consideration information we deemed relevant, we believe that we have sufficiently accrued for probable losses and that the actions will not have a material adverse effect on our 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, we enter into transactions with third parties in connection with the sale of assets or businesses in which we agree 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 us, for certain liabilities or risks related to the assets or business. Also, in the ordinary course of our business, we 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, we are unable to estimate the maximum potential amount of the potential future liability under the indemnity provisions of these agreements. We do, 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. We disclose contingent liabilities if the probability of loss is reasonably possible and material.

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 our 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 then 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, we believe that we have sufficient defenses to prevail, and we intend to defend our position vigorously. In the event that we do not prevail in this matter, we do 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. We expect to incur legal expenses of approximately $3 million in the next 12 to 18 months as we defend against this matter.

In 2011, we were 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. We 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 Purchase Agreement.