Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies Environmental The Company's operations are subject to extensive and changing federal and state environmental laws and regulations. The Company's manufacturing sites have an extended history of industrial use, and soil and groundwater contamination have or may have occurred in the past and might occur or be discovered in the future. Environmental efforts are difficult to assess for numerous reasons, including the discovery of new remedial sites, discovery of new information and scarcity of reliable information pertaining to certain sites, improvements in technology, changes in environmental laws and regulations, numerous possible remedial techniques and solutions, difficulty in assessing the involvement of and the financial capability of other potentially responsible parties and the extended time periods over which remediation occurs. Other than the items listed below, the Company is not aware of material environmental liabilities which are probable and estimable. As the Company's environmental contingencies are more clearly determined, it is reasonably possible that amounts may need to be accrued. However, management does not believe, based on current information, that environmental remediation requirements will have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Future environmental spending is probable at our site in Nashville, TN, the eastern portion of which had been used historically as a landfill, and a western parcel previously acquired from a third party, which reportedly had housed, but no longer does, a fertilizer and pesticide manufacturing facility. We have an estimated liability with a range of $0.9 million-$1.3 million. The remedial action plan for that site has yet to be finalized, and as such, the Company has recorded a liability, which represents the Company's best estimate, of $1.1 million as of June 30, 2015. Litigation 2008 RCRA Civil Enforcement - Geismar, Louisiana plant Following several inspections by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, at our Geismar, LA purified phosphoric acid, or PPA, plant and related submissions we made to support claimed exemptions from the federal Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, in March 2008, EPA referred our case to the Department of Justice, or DOJ, for civil enforcement. Although no citations were ever issued or formal proceedings instituted, the agencies claim we violate RCRA by failing to manage appropriately two materials that DOJ/EPA alleges are hazardous wastes. Those materials are: (i) Filter Material from an enclosed intermediate filtration step to further process green phosphoric acid we receive as raw material via pipeline from the adjacent site operated by an affiliate of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, or PCS; and (ii) Raffinate, a co-product we return to PCS under a long-term contract we have with PCS. Since referral of the case to DOJ, we and PCS have engaged in periodic discussions with DOJ/EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, or LDEQ, or collectively the Government Parties, in order to resolve the matter. In addition to asserting that the two materials in question are not hazardous wastes, we have also sought to demonstrate that both the nature and character of the materials as well as their use, handling and disposition were detailed in a solid waste permit amendment application filed in 1989 by PCS's predecessor, when our plant was first constructed, and approved by the LDEQ under the state RCRA program. In the course of discussions with the Government Parties, the DOJ/EPA has required that we undertake, as an interim measure, the construction of a new filter unit to replace the closed system and allow the removal and separate handling of the Filter Material. We built that unit, which has been operating since 2012. In an attempt to address the remaining concerns of the Government Parties, we and PCS undertook joint efforts to explore possible technical solutions to the issue of Raffinate treatment. Based upon work so far, there appears to be at least one technically viable approach, namely that of “deep well injection,” which we believe is acceptable to regulators as part of a negotiated solution among the parties. Although we cannot give assurances as to the future course or ultimate outcome of ongoing negotiations, including whether litigation may ultimately ensue, we believe, based on our appreciation of the current state of the proceedings, that deep well injection is likely to be employed as the technologically acceptable approach for Raffinate and that we will not be asked to contribute substantially to the cost of the deep well to be specified by the Government Parties in an anticipated consent decree for settlement of this enforcement matter. However, in negotiated settlements leading to consent decrees with the Governmental Parties, it is also common for penalties relating to previous “non-compliance” to be assessed and, in that connection, we have been advised by the Governmental Parties that they expect to seek penalties against both PCS and us in this case. Although we have argued and made submissions to the effect that for purposes of settlement penalties there is no basis for any substantial penalty to be levied against us, nevertheless, we can give no assurance as to that outcome, or if a penalty is initially assessed as to its amount, or whether it will be necessary for us to oppose or seek indemnity for the assessment by further litigation. Based upon our receipt of a draft consent decree from the Government Parties in June 2014 and subsequent discussions with them, we have established an accrual of $0.9 million for settlement civil penalties. However, further discussions among all parties will be necessary to determine if the matter can be resolved by settlement. Other Legal Matters In March 2008, Sudamfos S.A., or Sudamfos, an Argentine phosphate producer, filed an arbitration before the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris, France, concerning an alleged agreement for our Mexicana subsidiary, Mexicana, to sell it 12,500 metric tons of phosphoric acid, but subsequently withdrew the proceeding. In October 2008, Mexicana filed suit in Mexico against Sudamfos to collect approximately $1.2 million representing the contract price for prior deliveries of phosphoric acid for which Sudamfos had refused to pay. In October 2009, Sudamfos answered the suit and counterclaimed for $3.0 million based upon the agreement originally alleged in the arbitration. In subsequent proceedings including available appeals, Mexicana's claim was sustained and Sudamfos' counterclaim was denied. Mexicana has now begun formal collection proceedings against Sudamfos. In July 2013, Innophos, Inc. was assessed approximately $1.2 million of sales/use taxes by the State of Louisiana and Ascension Parish. This tax assessment covers certain raw materials used in the production of Phosphoric Acid. The Company is contesting both tax assessments. This assessment covers periods 2004 to 2010 for the Parish and 2007 to 2010 for the State. We have concluded that the contingent liability arising from this matter is neither remote nor probable, but reasonably possible. In addition, we are party to legal proceedings and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Except as to the matters specifically discussed, management believes that these matters represent remote liabilities. However, these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of them could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

The Company's operations are subject to extensive and changing federal and state environmental laws and regulations. The Company's manufacturing sites have an extended history of industrial use, and soil and groundwater contamination have or may have occurred in the past and might occur or be discovered in the future.

Environmental efforts are difficult to assess for numerous reasons, including the discovery of new remedial sites, discovery of new information and scarcity of reliable information pertaining to certain sites, improvements in technology, changes in environmental laws and regulations, numerous possible remedial techniques and solutions, difficulty in assessing the involvement of and the financial capability of other potentially responsible parties and the extended time periods over which remediation occurs. Other than the items listed below, the Company is not aware of material environmental liabilities which are probable and estimable. As the Company's environmental contingencies are more clearly determined, it is reasonably possible that amounts may need to be accrued. However, management does not believe, based on current information, that environmental remediation requirements will have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Future environmental spending is probable at our site in Nashville, TN, the eastern portion of which had been used historically as a landfill, and a western parcel previously acquired from a third party, which reportedly had housed, but no longer does, a fertilizer and pesticide manufacturing facility. We have an estimated liability with a range of $0.9 million-$1.3 million. The remedial action plan for that site has yet to be finalized, and as such, the Company has recorded a liability, which represents the Company's best estimate, of $1.1 million as of June 30, 2015.

Litigation

2008 RCRA Civil Enforcement - Geismar, Louisiana plant

Following several inspections by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, at our Geismar, LA purified phosphoric acid, or PPA, plant and related submissions we made to support claimed exemptions from the federal Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, in March 2008, EPA referred our case to the Department of Justice, or DOJ, for civil enforcement. Although no citations were ever issued or formal proceedings instituted, the agencies claim we violate RCRA by failing to manage appropriately two materials that DOJ/EPA alleges are hazardous wastes. Those materials are: (i) Filter Material from an enclosed intermediate filtration step to further process green phosphoric acid we receive as raw material via pipeline from the adjacent site operated by an affiliate of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, or PCS; and (ii) Raffinate, a co-product we return to PCS under a long-term contract we have with PCS.

Since referral of the case to DOJ, we and PCS have engaged in periodic discussions with DOJ/EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, or LDEQ, or collectively the Government Parties, in order to resolve the matter. In addition to asserting that the two materials in question are not hazardous wastes, we have also sought to demonstrate that both the nature and character of the materials as well as their use, handling and disposition were detailed in a solid waste permit amendment application filed in 1989 by PCS's predecessor, when our plant was first constructed, and approved by the LDEQ under the state RCRA program.

In the course of discussions with the Government Parties, the DOJ/EPA has required that we undertake, as an interim measure, the construction of a new filter unit to replace the closed system and allow the removal and separate handling of the Filter Material. We built that unit, which has been operating since 2012.

In an attempt to address the remaining concerns of the Government Parties, we and PCS undertook joint efforts to explore possible technical solutions to the issue of Raffinate treatment. Based upon work so far, there appears to be at least one technically viable approach, namely that of “deep well injection,” which we believe is acceptable to regulators as part of a negotiated solution among the parties.

Although we cannot give assurances as to the future course or ultimate outcome of ongoing negotiations, including whether litigation may ultimately ensue, we believe, based on our appreciation of the current state of the proceedings, that deep well injection is likely to be employed as the technologically acceptable approach for Raffinate and that we will not be asked to contribute substantially to the cost of the deep well to be specified by the Government Parties in an anticipated consent decree for settlement of this enforcement matter. However, in negotiated settlements leading to consent decrees with the Governmental Parties, it is also common for penalties relating to previous “non-compliance” to be assessed and, in that connection, we have been advised by the Governmental Parties that they expect to seek penalties against both PCS and us in this case. Although we have argued and made submissions to the effect that for purposes of settlement penalties there is no basis for any substantial penalty to be levied against us, nevertheless, we can give no assurance as to that outcome, or if a penalty is initially assessed as to its amount, or whether it will be necessary for us to oppose or seek indemnity for the assessment by further litigation. Based upon our receipt of a draft consent decree from the Government Parties in June 2014 and subsequent discussions with them, we have established an accrual of $0.9 million for settlement civil penalties. However, further discussions among all parties will be necessary to determine if the matter can be resolved by settlement.

Other Legal Matters

In March 2008, Sudamfos S.A., or Sudamfos, an Argentine phosphate producer, filed an arbitration before the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris, France, concerning an alleged agreement for our Mexicana subsidiary, Mexicana, to sell it 12,500 metric tons of phosphoric acid, but subsequently withdrew the proceeding. In October 2008, Mexicana filed suit in Mexico against Sudamfos to collect approximately $1.2 million representing the contract price for prior deliveries of phosphoric acid for which Sudamfos had refused to pay. In October 2009, Sudamfos answered the suit and counterclaimed for $3.0 million based upon the agreement originally alleged in the arbitration. In subsequent proceedings including available appeals, Mexicana's claim was sustained and Sudamfos' counterclaim was denied. Mexicana has now begun formal collection proceedings against Sudamfos.

In July 2013, Innophos, Inc. was assessed approximately $1.2 million of sales/use taxes by the State of Louisiana and Ascension Parish. This tax assessment covers certain raw materials used in the production of Phosphoric Acid. The Company is contesting both tax assessments. This assessment covers periods 2004 to 2010 for the Parish and 2007 to 2010 for the State. We have concluded that the contingent liability arising from this matter is neither remote nor probable, but reasonably possible.

In addition, we are party to legal proceedings and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Except as to the matters specifically discussed, management believes that these matters represent remote liabilities. However, these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of them could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and/or cash flows.