Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters Arista Development LLC v. Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation In 2004, Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation ("HHEM"), a subsidiary of H&H, entered into an agreement to sell a commercial/industrial property in Massachusetts ("MA Property"). Disputes between the parties resulted in the purchaser (plaintiff) initiating litigation in Bristol Superior Court in Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleged that HHEM was liable for breach of contract relating to HHEM's alleged breach of the agreement, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and certain consequential and treble damages as a result of HHEM's termination of the agreement in 2005, although HHEM subsequently revoked its notice of termination. HHEM has denied liability and vigorously defended the case. In November 2011, the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation without prejudice in order to focus their time, energies and resources on negotiating a settlement and not further litigating the matter unless and until they conclude that settlement is not reasonably possible. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability or range of any potential liability of HHEM associated with this matter, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Environmental Matters Certain subsidiaries of H&H Group have existing and contingent liabilities relating to environmental matters, including capital expenditures, costs of remediation and potential fines and penalties relating to possible violations of national and state environmental laws. Those subsidiaries have substantial remediation expenses on an ongoing basis, although such costs are continually being readjusted based upon the emergence of new techniques and alternative methods. The Company had approximately $6.2 million accrued related to estimated environmental remediation costs as of March 31, 2013. In addition, the Company has insurance coverage available for several of these matters and believes that excess insurance coverage may be available as well. Based upon information currently available, the H&H Group subsidiaries do not expect their respective environmental costs, including the incurrence of additional fines and penalties, if any, will have a material adverse effect on them or that the resolution of these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of such subsidiaries or the Company, but there can be no such assurances. The Company anticipates that the H&H Group subsidiaries will pay any such amounts out of their respective working capital, although there is no assurance that they will have sufficient funds to pay them. In the event that the H&H Group subsidiaries are unable to fund their liabilities, claims could be made against their respective parent companies, including H&H Group and/or HNH, for payment of such liabilities. In addition, certain subsidiaries of H&H Group have been identified as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") or similar state statutes at sites and are parties to administrative consent orders in connection with certain properties. Those subsidiaries may be subject to joint and several liabilities imposed by CERCLA on PRPs. Due to the technical and regulatory complexity of remedial activities and the difficulties attendant in identifying PRPs and allocating or determining liability among them, the subsidiaries are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate cost of compliance with such laws. Among the sites where certain subsidiaries of H&H Group may have existing and material environmental liabilities are the following: H&H has been working with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ("CTDEP") with respect to its obligations under a 1989 consent order that applies to a property in Connecticut that H&H sold in 2003 ("Sold Parcel") and an adjacent parcel ("Adjacent Parcel") that together with the Sold Parcel comprises the site of a former H&H manufacturing facility. Remediation of all soil conditions on the Sold Parcel was completed on April 6, 2007. H&H performed limited additional work on that site, solely in furtherance of now concluded settlement discussions between H&H and the purchaser of the Sold Parcel. Although no groundwater remediation is currently required, quarterly groundwater monitoring is required for at least another year. On September 11, 2008, the CTDEP advised H&H that it had approved H&H's December 28, 2007 Soil Remediation Action Report, as amended, thereby concluding the active remediation of the Sold Parcel. Approximately $29.2 million was expended to date, and the remaining remediation and monitoring costs for the Sold Parcel are expected to approximate $0.1 million. H&H previously received reimbursement of $2.0 million from an insurance company under a cost-cap insurance policy, and in January 2010, H&H received $1.0 million, net of attorney's fees, as the final settlement of H&H's claim for additional insurance coverage relating to the Sold Parcel. H&H also has been conducting an environmental investigation of the Adjacent Parcel and recently initiated a field study in order to assess various options for remediation of the Adjacent Parcel. The total remediation costs for the Adjacent Parcel cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of H&H or the Company. In 1986, HHEM entered into an administrative consent order ("ACO") with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") with regard to certain property that it purchased in 1984 in New Jersey. The ACO involves investigation and remediation activities to be performed with regard to soil and groundwater contamination. Thereafter, in 1998, HHEM and H&H settled a case brought by the local municipality in regard to this site and also settled with certain of its insurance carriers. HHEM is actively remediating the property and continuing to investigate effective methods for achieving compliance with the ACO. A remedial investigation report was filed with the NJDEP in December 2007. By letter dated December 12, 2008, NJDEP issued its approval with respect to additional investigation and remediation activities discussed in the December 2007 remedial investigation report. HHEM anticipates entering into discussions with NJDEP to address that agency's potential natural resource damage claims, the ultimate scope and cost of which cannot be estimated at this time. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with the former owner/operator of the site, the responsibility for site investigation and remediation costs, as well as any other costs, as defined in the settlement agreement, related to or arising from environmental contamination on the property (collectively, "Costs") are contractually allocated 75% to the former owner/operator (with separate guaranties by the two joint venture partners of the former owner/operator for 37.5% each) and 25% jointly to HHEM and H&H after the first $1.0 million. The $1.0 million was paid solely by the former owner/operator. As of March 31, 2013, over and above the $1.0 million, total investigation and remediation costs of approximately $2.6 million and $0.9 million have been expended by the former owner/operator and HHEM, respectively, in accordance with the settlement agreement. Additionally, HHEM is currently being reimbursed indirectly through insurance coverage for a portion of the Costs for which HHEM is responsible. HHEM believes that there is additional excess insurance coverage, which it intends to pursue as necessary. HHEM anticipates that there will be additional remediation expenses to be incurred once a final remediation plan is agreed upon. There is no assurance that the former owner/operator or guarantors will continue to timely reimburse HHEM for expenditures and/or will be financially capable of fulfilling their obligations under the settlement agreement and the guaranties. The additional Costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of HHEM or the Company. In August 2006, H&H received a notice letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") formally naming H&H as a PRP at a superfund site in Massachusetts ("Superfund site"). H&H is part of a group of thirteen other PRPs ("PRP Group") that work cooperatively regarding remediation of the Superfund site. On June 13, 2008, H&H executed a participation agreement, consent decree and settlement trust that all of the other PRPs have signed as well. In December 2008, the EPA lodged the consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the consent decree was entered on January 27, 2009, after no comments were received during the thirty-day comment period. With the entry and filing of the consent decree, H&H was required to make two payments in 2009: one payment of $0.2 million relating to the "true-up" of monies previously expended for remediation and a payment of $0.3 million for H&H's share of the early action items for the remediation project. In addition, on March 11, 2009, HNH executed a financial guaranty of H&H's obligations in connection with the Superfund site in the amount of $2.6 million. The PRP Group has both chemical and radiological PRPs. H&H is a chemical PRP; not a radiological PRP. The remediation of radiological contamination at the Superfund site, under the direction of the Department of Energy ("DOE"), has been completed and the Final Status Survey was submitted to EPA in August 2012. The Final Status Survey was recently approved by the EPA, and the PRPs were granted access verbally to the Superfund site in November 2012. Additional financial contributions will be required to be made in early June 2013, and H&H's share is 14.69%. H&H has recorded a significant liability in connection with this matter. There can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of H&H or the Company. HHEM is continuing to comply with a 1987 consent order from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ("MADEP") to investigate and remediate the soil and groundwater conditions at the MA Property that is the subject of the Arista Development litigation discussed above. On June 30, 2010, HHEM filed a Response Action Outcome Statement to close the site since HHEM's licensed site professional concluded that groundwater monitoring demonstrated that the groundwater conditions have stabilized or continue to improve at the site. HHEM anticipates a formal notice of audit findings from MADEP within the first half of 2013. While there can be no assurances, the Company does not expect any further liability in this matter to be material. In addition, HHEM has concluded settlement discussions with abutters of the MA Property and entered into settlement agreements with each of them. Therefore, HHEM does not expect that any claims from any additional abutters will be asserted, but there can be no such assurances. Other Litigation There are other claims against the Company or certain of its subsidiaries which arise in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability, range or share of any potential liability of the Company or its subsidiaries in any of these matters. There is insurance coverage available for many of the foregoing actions, which are being litigated in a variety of jurisdictions. To date, HNH and its subsidiaries have not incurred and do not believe they will incur any significant liability with respect to these claims, which they are contesting vigorously. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such litigation and claims could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows when they are resolved in future periods.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

Arista Development LLC v. Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation

In 2004, Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation ("HHEM"), a subsidiary of H&H, entered into an agreement to sell a commercial/industrial property in Massachusetts ("MA Property"). Disputes between the parties resulted in the purchaser (plaintiff) initiating litigation in Bristol Superior Court in Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleged that HHEM was liable for breach of contract relating to HHEM's alleged breach of the agreement, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and certain consequential and treble damages as a result of HHEM's termination of the agreement in 2005, although HHEM subsequently revoked its notice of termination. HHEM has denied liability and vigorously defended the case. In November 2011, the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation without prejudice in order to focus their time, energies and resources on negotiating a settlement and not further litigating the matter unless and until they conclude that settlement is not reasonably possible. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability or range of any potential liability of HHEM associated with this matter, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

Environmental Matters

Certain subsidiaries of H&H Group have existing and contingent liabilities relating to environmental matters, including capital expenditures, costs of remediation and potential fines and penalties relating to possible violations of national and state environmental laws. Those subsidiaries have substantial remediation expenses on an ongoing basis, although such costs are continually being readjusted based upon the emergence of new techniques and alternative methods. The Company had approximately $6.2 million accrued related to estimated environmental remediation costs as of March 31, 2013. In addition, the Company has insurance coverage available for several of these matters and believes that excess insurance coverage may be available as well. Based upon information currently available, the H&H Group subsidiaries do not expect their respective environmental costs, including the incurrence of additional fines and penalties, if any, will have a material adverse effect on them or that the resolution of these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of such subsidiaries or the Company, but there can be no such assurances. The Company anticipates that the H&H Group subsidiaries will pay any such amounts out of their respective working capital, although there is no assurance that they will have sufficient funds to pay them. In the event that the H&H Group subsidiaries are unable to fund their liabilities, claims could be made against their respective parent companies, including H&H Group and/or HNH, for payment of such liabilities.

In addition, certain subsidiaries of H&H Group have been identified as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") or similar state statutes at sites and are parties to administrative consent orders in connection with certain properties. Those subsidiaries may be subject to joint and several liabilities imposed by CERCLA on PRPs. Due to the technical and regulatory complexity of remedial activities and the difficulties attendant in identifying PRPs and allocating or determining liability among them, the subsidiaries are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate cost of compliance with such laws.

Among the sites where certain subsidiaries of H&H Group may have existing and material environmental liabilities are the following:

H&H has been working with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ("CTDEP") with respect to its obligations under a 1989 consent order that applies to a property in Connecticut that H&H sold in 2003 ("Sold Parcel") and an adjacent parcel ("Adjacent Parcel") that together with the Sold Parcel comprises the site of a former H&H manufacturing facility. Remediation of all soil conditions on the Sold Parcel was completed on April 6, 2007. H&H performed limited additional work on that site, solely in furtherance of now concluded settlement discussions between H&H and the purchaser of the Sold Parcel. Although no groundwater remediation is currently required, quarterly groundwater monitoring is required for at least another year. On September 11, 2008, the CTDEP advised H&H that it had approved H&H's December 28, 2007 Soil Remediation Action Report, as amended, thereby concluding the active remediation of the Sold Parcel. Approximately $29.2 million was expended to date, and the remaining remediation and monitoring costs for the Sold Parcel are expected to approximate $0.1 million. H&H previously received reimbursement of $2.0 million from an insurance company under a cost-cap insurance policy, and in January 2010, H&H received $1.0 million, net of attorney's fees, as the final settlement of H&H's claim for additional insurance coverage relating to the Sold Parcel. H&H also has been conducting an environmental investigation of the Adjacent Parcel and recently initiated a field study in order to assess various options for remediation of the Adjacent Parcel. The total remediation costs for the Adjacent Parcel cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of H&H or the Company.

In 1986, HHEM entered into an administrative consent order ("ACO") with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") with regard to certain property that it purchased in 1984 in New Jersey. The ACO involves investigation and remediation activities to be performed with regard to soil and groundwater contamination. Thereafter, in 1998, HHEM and H&H settled a case brought by the local municipality in regard to this site and also settled with certain of its insurance carriers. HHEM is actively remediating the property and continuing to investigate effective methods for achieving compliance with the ACO. A remedial investigation report was filed with the NJDEP in December 2007. By letter dated December 12, 2008, NJDEP issued its approval with respect to additional investigation and remediation activities discussed in the December 2007 remedial investigation report. HHEM anticipates entering into discussions with NJDEP to address that agency's potential natural resource damage claims, the ultimate scope and cost of which cannot be estimated at this time. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with the former owner/operator of the site, the responsibility for site investigation and remediation costs, as well as any other costs, as defined in the settlement agreement, related to or arising from environmental contamination on the property (collectively, "Costs") are contractually allocated 75% to the former owner/operator (with separate guaranties by the two joint venture partners of the former owner/operator for 37.5% each) and 25% jointly to HHEM and H&H after the first $1.0 million. The $1.0 million was paid solely by the former owner/operator. As of March 31, 2013, over and above the $1.0 million, total investigation and remediation costs of approximately $2.6 million and $0.9 million have been expended by the former owner/operator and HHEM, respectively, in accordance with the settlement agreement. Additionally, HHEM is currently being reimbursed indirectly through insurance coverage for a portion of the Costs for which HHEM is responsible. HHEM believes that there is additional excess insurance coverage, which it intends to pursue as necessary. HHEM anticipates that there will be additional remediation expenses to be incurred once a final remediation plan is agreed upon. There is no assurance that the former owner/operator or guarantors will continue to timely reimburse HHEM for expenditures and/or will be financially capable of fulfilling their obligations under the settlement agreement and the guaranties. The additional Costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of HHEM or the Company.

In August 2006, H&H received a notice letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") formally naming H&H as a PRP at a superfund site in Massachusetts ("Superfund site"). H&H is part of a group of thirteen other PRPs ("PRP Group") that work cooperatively regarding remediation of the Superfund site. On June 13, 2008, H&H executed a participation agreement, consent decree and settlement trust that all of the other PRPs have signed as well. In December 2008, the EPA lodged the consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the consent decree was entered on January 27, 2009, after no comments were received during the thirty-day comment period. With the entry and filing of the consent decree, H&H was required to make two payments in 2009: one payment of $0.2 million relating to the "true-up" of monies previously expended for remediation and a payment of $0.3 million for H&H's share of the early action items for the remediation project. In addition, on March 11, 2009, HNH executed a financial guaranty of H&H's obligations in connection with the Superfund site in the amount of $2.6 million. The PRP Group has both chemical and radiological PRPs. H&H is a chemical PRP; not a radiological PRP. The remediation of radiological contamination at the Superfund site, under the direction of the Department of Energy ("DOE"), has been completed and the Final Status Survey was submitted to EPA in August 2012. The Final Status Survey was recently approved by the EPA, and the PRPs were granted access verbally to the Superfund site in November 2012. Additional financial contributions will be required to be made in early June 2013, and H&H's share is 14.69%. H&H has recorded a significant liability in connection with this matter. There can be no assurance that the resolution of this matter will not be material to the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of H&H or the Company.

HHEM is continuing to comply with a 1987 consent order from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ("MADEP") to investigate and remediate the soil and groundwater conditions at the MA Property that is the subject of the Arista Development litigation discussed above. On June 30, 2010, HHEM filed a Response Action Outcome Statement to close the site since HHEM's licensed site professional concluded that groundwater monitoring demonstrated that the groundwater conditions have stabilized or continue to improve at the site. HHEM anticipates a formal notice of audit findings from MADEP within the first half of 2013. While there can be no assurances, the Company does not expect any further liability in this matter to be material. In addition, HHEM has concluded settlement discussions with abutters of the MA Property and entered into settlement agreements with each of them. Therefore, HHEM does not expect that any claims from any additional abutters will be asserted, but there can be no such assurances.

Other Litigation

There are other claims against the Company or certain of its subsidiaries which arise in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability, range or share of any potential liability of the Company or its subsidiaries in any of these matters.

There is insurance coverage available for many of the foregoing actions, which are being litigated in a variety of jurisdictions. To date, HNH and its subsidiaries have not incurred and do not believe they will incur any significant liability with respect to these claims, which they are contesting vigorously. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such litigation and claims could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows when they are resolved in future periods.