Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies Environmental The Company is subject to environmental standards imposed by federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $0.4 million in 2011, $5.4 million in 2010, and $1.1 million in 2009 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income (expense), net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $22.9 million at December 31, 2011 and $23.9 million at December 25, 2010. As of December 31, 2011, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.3 million in 2012, $1.1 million in 2013, $1.0 million in 2014, $0.5 million in 2015, $0.5 million in 2016, and $9.0 million thereafter. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer has not yet been determined. Non-operating Properties Southeast Kansas Sites By letter dated October 10, 2006, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) advised the Company that environmental contamination has been identified at a former smelter site in southeast Kansas. KDHE asserts that the Company is a corporate successor to an entity that is alleged to have owned and operated the smelter from 1915 to 1918. The Company has since been advised of a possible connection between that same entity and two other former smelter sites in Kansas. KDHE has requested that the Company and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) negotiate a consent order with KDHE to address contamination at these sites. The Company has participated in preliminary discussions with KDHE and the other PRPs. The Company believes it is not liable for the contamination but as an alternative to litigation, the Company has entered into settlement negotiations with one of the other PRPs. The negotiations are ongoing. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Due to the ongoing nature of negotiations, the timing of potential payment has not yet been determined. The Company has also agreed to share the costs of a preliminary site assessment at one of the former smelter sites with two other PRPs and currently is negotiating the terms of an agreement and work plan with KDHE by which the PRPs would study the site without conceding liability. Eureka Mills Site On December 2, 2010, the United States District Court for Utah entered a consent decree between the Company, the United States and the State of Utah. The decree resolves the claims asserted by the U.S. and the State of Utah related to Eureka Mills Superfund Site located in Juab County, Utah. The Company's connection to the Eureka Mills Site is through land within the site that was owned by Sharon Steel Corporation (Sharon), its predecessor, and a 1979 transaction with UV Industries (UV) in which Sharon allegedly assumed certain of UV's liabilities. During 2010, the Company provided $2.5 million to settle its claims, of which $250 thousand was paid to the State of Utah in December 2010 and the remainder was paid to the U.S. in February 2011. Shasta Area Mine Sites Mining Remedial Recovery Company (MRRC), a wholly owned subsidiary, owns certain inactive mines in Shasta County, California. MRRC has continued a program, begun in the late 1980's, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program has achieved significant reductions in the metal load in discharges from these adits; however, additional reductions are required pursuant to an order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (QCB). In response to a 1996 Order issued by the QCB, MRRC completed a feasibility study in 1997 describing measures designed to mitigate the effects of acid rock drainage. In December 1998, the QCB modified the 1996 order extending MRRC's time to comply with water quality standards. In September 2002, the QCB adopted a new order requiring MRRC to adopt Best Management Practices (BMP) to control discharges of acid mine drainage. That order extended the time to comply with water quality standards until September 2007. During that time, implementation of BMP further reduced impacts of acid rock drainage; however, full compliance has not been achieved. The QCB is presently renewing MRRC's discharge permit and will concurrently issue a new order. It is expected that the new permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2015 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $0.6 million in 2011, $0.7 million in 2010 and $0.5 million in 2009, and estimates that it will spend between approximately $8.2 million and $11.5 million over the next 20 years. Lead Refinery Site U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of MRRC, has conducted corrective action and interim remedial activities and studies (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Site Activities, which began in December 1996, have been substantially concluded. Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance activities with respect to Site Activities pursuant to a post-closure permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) effective as of January 22, 2008. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2011, 2010 and 2009 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.1 million and $3.3 million over the next 20 years. On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Lead Refinery site to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the EPA has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of contaminants that warrant investigation and, if appropriate, remedial action. The NPL does not assign liability to any party including the owner or operator of a property placed on the NPL. The placement of a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that remedial action must be taken. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA that the agency is of the view that Lead Refinery may be a PRP under CERCLA in connection with the release or threat of release of hazardous substances including lead into a residential area adjacent to the site. PRPs under CERCLA include current and former owners and operators of a site, persons who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a site, or persons who accepted hazardous substances for transport to a site. The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the Lead Refinery site. As of December 31, 2011, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome or the amount or range of a potential loss with respect to placement of this site on the NPL or in connection with the notice of potential liability concerning the residential area. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA. Operating Properties Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. In 1999, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. (MCTP), a wholly owned subsidiary, commenced a cleanup and remediation of soil and groundwater at its Wynne, Arkansas plant. MCTP is currently removing trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP, from the soil and groundwater. On August 30, 2000, MCTP received approval of its Final Comprehensive Investigation Report and Storm Water Drainage Investigation Report addressing the treatment of soils and groundwater from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Company established a reserve for this project in connection with the acquisition of MCTP in 1998. Effective November 17, 2008, MCTP entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order by Consent to submit a Supplemental Investigation Work Plan (SIWP) and subsequent Final Remediation Work Plan for the site. By letter dated January 20, 2010, ADEQ approved the SIWP as submitted, with changes acceptable to the Company. On December 16, 2011, MCTP entered into an amended Administrative Order by Consent to prepare and implement a revised Remediation Work Plan regarding final remediation for the Site. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.9 million over the next 10 years. Belding, Michigan Lead Matters In 2009 and 2010, in response to requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded), a wholly owned subsidiary, conducted stack emissions testing of the stationary sources at its Belding, Michigan facility (the Belding Facility). The results of tests on the West Chip Dryer showed non-compliance with certain emission limitations in the facility's air use permit for that process, including the limitation for lead. Modifications were made to the emissions control equipment on the West Chip Dryer, and subsequent testing demonstrated all stationary sources at the Belding Facility to be in compliance with the requirements of their air use permits. In December 2009 and August 2010, the MDEQ issued a notice of violation and an enforcement notice with respect to the prior West Chip Dryer permit violations. Extruded entered into an administrative consent order (ACO) with the MDEQ to resolve the allegations contained in the notices. Under the ACO, the MDEQ imposed and Extruded has paid a civil fine in the amount of $176 thousand as part of the resolution of those allegations. Extruded has satisfied all of its obligations under the ACO. Ambient air monitoring conducted by the MDEQ downwind of the Belding Facility demonstrated periodic exceedances of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The MDEQ requested that Extruded submit an application for a new air use permit for the Belding Facility that would ensure compliance with that new federal standard. The application was submitted to the MDEQ on January 21, 2011, and the new air permit was issued on October 20, 2011. The permit requires Extruded to raise the stack height on the facility's West Chip Dryer that is presently in operation, and on the East Chip Dryer that is presently not in operations, before it is returned to operation. Extruded has raised the stack height on the West Chip Dryer, and has no present plans to return the East Chip Dryer to operation. In October 2010, the MDEQ conducted testing of lead levels in soils on properties upwind and downwind of the Belding Facility. Results of that testing showed exceedances of the Michigan generic residential direct contact cleanup criteria for lead on a number of the downwind properties. Extruded has investigated the extent of this condition and performed remediation to the extent required by environmental laws and in accordance with a plan approved by the MDEQ in April 2011. In January 2012, Extruded submitted a final Certification Report to the MDEQ documenting its completion of that remediation. The Company provided $0.4 million in 2010 for this matter, and is pursuing potential remedies from the previous owner. The Company does not expect additional material losses associated with these environmental matters. In November 2010, Extruded received a request for information under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act from the EPA. The focus of the EPA's information request was the Belding Facility's compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources, 40 C.F.R. § 63.11462 (Subpart TTTTTT). Extruded responded to the information request and advised the EPA of its position that it was not subject to regulation under Subpart TTTTTT. The state has requested that Extruded request an applicability determination from the EPA. The request has been made and Extruded is awaiting a response. The estimates contained in the environmental reserves are based on assumptions that are highly subjective. Many of the remedial activities performed by the Company are pursuant to performance-based obligations imposed by various regulatory bodies in which certain standards regarding levels of contaminants must be met. The most subjective assumption that affects the estimates at these sites is the assumed length of time to comply with the remedial requirements set by the regulatory authorities. This assumption is subject to change based on the regulatory environment, unanticipated delays and events that could limit access to these sites, unforeseen negative sampling results, and other factors. Changes in any of these factors could have a material impact on future environmental expense. Carrier ACR Tube Action The Company has been named as a defendant in a pending litigation (the Carrier ACR Tube Action) brought by Carrier Corporation, Carrier S.A., and Carrier Italia S.p.A. (collectively, Carrier), direct purchasers of copper tube. The Carrier ACR Tube Action was filed in March 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The Carrier ACR Tube Action alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of copper tube used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-conditioning and refrigeration units. The Company and Mueller Europe, Limited (Mueller Europe) are named in the Carrier ACR Tube Action. The Carrier ACR Tube Action seeks monetary and other relief. In July 2007, the Carrier ACR Tube Action was dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all defendants. In August 2007, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a notice of appeal from the judgment and order dismissing the complaint in the Carrier ACR Tube Action. The Company and Mueller Europe filed notices of cross-appeal in August 2007. In October 2007, Carrier filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a motion to dismiss the cross-appeals, which the Court denied in December 2007. Briefing on the appeals occurred in May 2009 and oral argument took place in October 2009. Pursuant to stipulations of dismissal, the Court dismissed the Company's and Mueller Europe's cross-appeals against Carrier, and Carrier's appeal as against the Company and Mueller Europe, in November 2011. This matter is now resolved. United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review On December 24, 2008, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico to determine the final antidumping duties owed on U.S. imports during the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008, by certain subsidiaries of the Company. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller Comercial) an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. The Company has appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision to remand the final results back to DOC to reconsider its decision. DOC is ordered to file its remand results with the CIT by April 16, 2012. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $4.2 million for this matter. On December 23, 2009, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 19.8 percent. On August 22, 2011, the Company appealed the final results to the CIT. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $1.0 million for this matter. On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. In August 2011, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review based on a finding that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. By the end of the year, the DOC should issue a final determination which, if the result mirrors the preliminary determination, would result in zero antidumping liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the period of review. Until the final determination is issued, however, the Company cannot estimate the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. United States Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission Antidumping Investigations On September 30, 2009, two subsidiaries of the Company, along with Cerro Flow Products, Inc. and KobeWieland Copper Products LLC (collectively, Petitioners), jointly filed antidumping petitions with the DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico (subject imports) were being sold at less than fair value and were causing material injury (and threatening material injury) to the domestic industry. On October 1, 2010, the DOC published its final affirmative determinations, finding antidumping rates from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent for Mexico (as amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China. On November 22, 2010, the ITC issued its final affirmative determination that subject imports from China and Mexico threatened material injury to the domestic industry. Also on November 22, 2010, the DOC published antidumping orders, with the effect that importers were required to post antidumping cash deposits at rates ranging from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent (for subject imports from Mexico) and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent (for subject imports from China). On December 22, 2010, certain Mexican parties requested panel reviews under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to appeal the ITC final determination as to Mexico. Following a period of litigation, the last of the Mexican parties withdrew its allegations on December 8, 2011, with the effect that the ITC final determination as to Mexico shall remain in force. On July 7, 2011, the DOC initiated a new shipper review of certain entries from a Mexican processor of copper tube, GD Affiliates S.de R.L. de C.V., in order to establish a company-specific dumping rate for this company based on the period November 22, 2010 through April 30, 2011. The review is expected to be completed sometime in 2012. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the review. On December 31, 2011, the DOC initiated administrative reviews of several Chinese and Mexican copper tube producers and/or exporters to the United States - including IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico), Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (Mexico), Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), Golden Dragon Holding Hong Kong International Co., Ltd. (China), Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (China), Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (China), Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited (China), Luvata Alltop Zhongshan Ltd. (China), Luvata Tube Zhongshan Ltd. (China), Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd. (China), Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd. (China), Sinochem Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China), Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (China), Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd. (China), Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc. (China), and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. (China) - in order to establish company-specific dumping rates based on the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. On February 22, 2012, the DOC recinded its review of IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico). The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these reviews. Supplier Litigation On May 6, 2011, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, Mueller Streamline Co. (Mueller Streamline) and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles, California against a former supplier, Xiamen Lota International Co., Ltd (Xiamen Lota), its U.S. sales representative (Lota USA), and certain other persons. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants gave Peter D. Berkman, a former executive of the Company and B&K, an undisclosed interest in Lota USA, and made payments and promises of payment to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) and state law unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief. All of the foreign defendants have been served under the Hague Convention and Xiamen Lota has withdrawn its motion contesting service of process (filed July 1, 2011). On January 4, 2012, the foreign defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Company's complaint for failure to state a claim, and also joined in Lota USA's pending motion to dismiss (filed July 1, 2011). Both motions to dismiss are scheduled to be heard on April 9, 2012. On December 16, 2011, the Court granted Lota USA's motion to disqualify the Company's counsel and the Company has retained new counsel to represent it going forward in the lawsuit. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote. On August 2, 2011, Xiamen Lota, and Lota Corp. filed suit in federal district court in Memphis, Tennessee against Mueller Industries, Inc. and Mueller Streamline (collectively Mueller). This matter involves allegations of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of dealing pursuant to which Xiamen Lota supplied Mueller with plumbing products. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, and other equitable relief. Mueller intends to vigorously defend this action. In this regard, Mueller has counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of warranty and misrepresentation. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote. On September 30, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois, against B&K, by Xiamen Lota, and two of its employees, Yongqiang He (He) and Chuanbao Zhu (Zhu). The lawsuit alleges that B&K, a subsidiary of the Company, failed to name He as an inventor on three United States patents, U.S. patent nos. 6,880,573 ('573 Patent), 7,140,390 ('390 Patent), and 7,549,444 ('444 Patent) awarded to employees of B&K, and subsequently assigned to B&K. The '573 Patent, '390 Patent and '444 Patent pertain to frost-free valve assemblies sold by B&K. The lawsuit also alleges that B&K failed to name Zhu as an inventor on the '390 Patent. According to the complaint, He and Zhu have assigned any rights they might have in the three patents to Xiamen Lota. The claims in the lawsuit include correction of inventorship (Counts I - VI), unjust enrichment (Count VII), and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count VIII), and seek unspecified damages from B&K. The Company has answered Counts I-VI, denying all substantive allegations, and has asserted affirmative defenses. The Company has moved to dismiss Counts VII and VIII. The Company's motion to dismiss Counts VII and VIII remains pending. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote. Litigation Settlement The Company negotiated a settlement with Peter D. Berkman and Jeffrey A. Berkman, former executives of the Company and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that required the payment of $10.5 million in cash by Peter Berkman, Jeffrey Berkman, and Homewerks Worldwide LLC to the Company. During 2011, the Company recorded a gain of $10.5 million upon receipt of the settlement proceeds. Leases The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2024. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.8 million in 2012, $6.7 million in 2013, $5.0 million in 2014, $4.5 million in 2015, $3.8 million in 2016, and $6.4 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $8.8 million in 2011, $8.0 million in 2010, and $8.6 million in 2009. Consulting Agreement During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Harvey L. Karp, Chairman of the Board. The Consulting Agreement provides for post-employment services to be provided by Mr. Karp for a six-year period. During the first four years of the Consulting Agreement, an annual fee equal to two-thirds of the executive's Final Base Compensation (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) will be payable. During the final two years, the annual fee is set at one-third of the executive's Final Base Compensation. During the term of the Consulting Agreement, the executive agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and will be entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company. The maximum amount payable under the Consulting Agreement is $6.7 million. On November 3, 2011, Mr. Karp notified the Company that he would resign as Chairman of the Company and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of December 31, 2011. Following his resignation, on January 1, 2012, the Consulting Agreement commenced. Based upon the value of the non-compete provisions of the Consulting Agreement, the Company will expense the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term. Other In November 2008, the Company's copper tube facility in Bilston, Great Britain, was damaged by fire and production was curtailed; the losses were covered by property and business interruption insurance. During 2010, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $35.3 million, net of the deductible of $0.5 million. As a result of the settlement with its insurer, all proceeds received and all costs previously deferred (which were recorded as a receivable in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $21.2 million in 2010. In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company's copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi. Production was curtailed for approximately one week for cleanup and repairs to building structures. Certain production equipment was also extensively damaged. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In January 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and received $1.5 million; this gain will be recognized in the first quarter of 2012. In September 2011, a portion of the Company's Wynne, Arkansas, manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. There were no reported injuries. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged requiring further assessment, which is ongoing; rehabilitation alternatives are also being evaluated. The total value of the loss, including business interruption, cannot be determined at this time, but is expected to be covered by property and business interruption insurance subject to customary deductibles. As a result of the fire, the Company reclassified to a receivable $2.7 million representing the book value of inventories and $9.6 million representing the net book value of certain production equipment and building structures that were damaged. The Company also recorded a receivable of $2.5 million for clean-up and other out of pocket costs incurred to date. Any proceeds received for property damage in excess of the net book value of the related property will be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim. The Company has received an advance of $10.0 million from the insurance company for this claim resulting in a net receivable of $4.8 million, classified as accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2011. In January 2012, the Company received a second advance from the insurance company of $40 million. The Company has deferred recognition of direct, identifiable costs associated with this matter. These costs will be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim. Additionally, the Company is involved in certain litigation as a result of claims that arose in the ordinary course of business, which management believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also realize the benefit of certain legal claims and litigation in the future; these gain contingencies are not recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

The Company is subject to environmental standards imposed by federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $0.4 million in 2011, $5.4 million in 2010, and $1.1 million in 2009 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income (expense), net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $22.9 million at December 31, 2011 and $23.9 million at December 25, 2010. As of December 31, 2011, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.3 million in 2012, $1.1 million in 2013, $1.0 million in 2014, $0.5 million in 2015, $0.5 million in 2016, and $9.0 million thereafter. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer has not yet been determined.

Non-operating Properties

Southeast Kansas Sites

By letter dated October 10, 2006, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) advised the Company that environmental contamination has been identified at a former smelter site in southeast Kansas. KDHE asserts that the Company is a corporate successor to an entity that is alleged to have owned and operated the smelter from 1915 to 1918. The Company has since been advised of a possible connection between that same entity and two other former smelter sites in Kansas. KDHE has requested that the Company and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) negotiate a consent order with KDHE to address contamination at these sites. The Company has participated in preliminary discussions with KDHE and the other PRPs. The Company believes it is not liable for the contamination but as an alternative to litigation, the Company has entered into settlement negotiations with one of the other PRPs. The negotiations are ongoing. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Due to the ongoing nature of negotiations, the timing of potential payment has not yet been determined. The Company has also agreed to share the costs of a preliminary site assessment at one of the former smelter sites with two other PRPs and currently is negotiating the terms of an agreement and work plan with KDHE by which the PRPs would study the site without conceding liability.

Eureka Mills Site

On December 2, 2010, the United States District Court for Utah entered a consent decree between the Company, the United States and the State of Utah. The decree resolves the claims asserted by the U.S. and the State of Utah related to Eureka Mills Superfund Site located in Juab County, Utah. The Company's connection to the Eureka Mills Site is through land within the site that was owned by Sharon Steel Corporation (Sharon), its predecessor, and a 1979 transaction with UV Industries (UV) in which Sharon allegedly assumed certain of UV's liabilities. During 2010, the Company provided $2.5 million to settle its claims, of which $250 thousand was paid to the State of Utah in December 2010 and the remainder was paid to the U.S. in February 2011.

Shasta Area Mine Sites

Mining Remedial Recovery Company (MRRC), a wholly owned subsidiary, owns certain inactive mines in Shasta County, California. MRRC has continued a program, begun in the late 1980's, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program has achieved significant reductions in the metal load in discharges from these adits; however, additional reductions are required pursuant to an order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (QCB). In response to a 1996 Order issued by the QCB, MRRC completed a feasibility study in 1997 describing measures designed to mitigate the effects of acid rock drainage. In December 1998, the QCB modified the 1996 order extending MRRC's time to comply with water quality standards. In September 2002, the QCB adopted a new order requiring MRRC to adopt Best Management Practices (BMP) to control discharges of acid mine drainage. That order extended the time to comply with water quality standards until September 2007. During that time, implementation of BMP further reduced impacts of acid rock drainage; however, full compliance has not been achieved. The QCB is presently renewing MRRC's discharge permit and will concurrently issue a new order. It is expected that the new permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2015 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $0.6 million in 2011, $0.7 million in 2010 and $0.5 million in 2009, and estimates that it will spend between approximately $8.2 million and $11.5 million over the next 20 years.

Lead Refinery Site

U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of MRRC, has conducted corrective action and interim remedial activities and studies (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Site Activities, which began in December 1996, have been substantially concluded. Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance activities with respect to Site Activities pursuant to a post-closure permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) effective as of January 22, 2008. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2011, 2010 and 2009 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.1 million and $3.3 million over the next 20 years.

On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Lead Refinery site to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the EPA has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of contaminants that warrant investigation and, if appropriate, remedial action. The NPL does not assign liability to any party including the owner or operator of a property placed on the NPL. The placement of a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that remedial action must be taken. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA that the agency is of the view that Lead Refinery may be a PRP under CERCLA in connection with the release or threat of release of hazardous substances including lead into a residential area adjacent to the site. PRPs under CERCLA include current and former owners and operators of a site, persons who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a site, or persons who accepted hazardous substances for transport to a site.

The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the Lead Refinery site. As of December 31, 2011, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome or the amount or range of a potential loss with respect to placement of this site on the NPL or in connection with the notice of potential liability concerning the residential area. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA.

Operating Properties

Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.

In 1999, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. (MCTP), a wholly owned subsidiary, commenced a cleanup and remediation of soil and groundwater at its Wynne, Arkansas plant. MCTP is currently removing trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP, from the soil and groundwater. On August 30, 2000, MCTP received approval of its Final Comprehensive Investigation Report and Storm Water Drainage Investigation Report addressing the treatment of soils and groundwater from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Company established a reserve for this project in connection with the acquisition of MCTP in 1998. Effective November 17, 2008, MCTP entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order by Consent to submit a Supplemental Investigation Work Plan (SIWP) and subsequent Final Remediation Work Plan for the site. By letter dated January 20, 2010, ADEQ approved the SIWP as submitted, with changes acceptable to the Company. On December 16, 2011, MCTP entered into an amended Administrative Order by Consent to prepare and implement a revised Remediation Work Plan regarding final remediation for the Site. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.9 million over the next 10 years.

Belding, Michigan Lead Matters

In 2009 and 2010, in response to requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded), a wholly owned subsidiary, conducted stack emissions testing of the stationary sources at its Belding, Michigan facility (the Belding Facility). The results of tests on the West Chip Dryer showed non-compliance with certain emission limitations in the facility's air use permit for that process, including the limitation for lead. Modifications were made to the emissions control equipment on the West Chip Dryer, and subsequent testing demonstrated all stationary sources at the Belding Facility to be in compliance with the requirements of their air use permits.

In December 2009 and August 2010, the MDEQ issued a notice of violation and an enforcement notice with respect to the prior West Chip Dryer permit violations. Extruded entered into an administrative consent order (ACO) with the MDEQ to resolve the allegations contained in the notices. Under the ACO, the MDEQ imposed and Extruded has paid a civil fine in the amount of $176 thousand as part of the resolution of those allegations. Extruded has satisfied all of its obligations under the ACO.

Ambient air monitoring conducted by the MDEQ downwind of the Belding Facility demonstrated periodic exceedances of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The MDEQ requested that Extruded submit an application for a new air use permit for the Belding Facility that would ensure compliance with that new federal standard. The application was submitted to the MDEQ on January 21, 2011, and the new air permit was issued on October 20, 2011. The permit requires Extruded to raise the stack height on the facility's West Chip Dryer that is presently in operation, and on the East Chip Dryer that is presently not in operations, before it is returned to operation. Extruded has raised the stack height on the West Chip Dryer, and has no present plans to return the East Chip Dryer to operation.

In October 2010, the MDEQ conducted testing of lead levels in soils on properties upwind and downwind of the Belding Facility. Results of that testing showed exceedances of the Michigan generic residential direct contact cleanup criteria for lead on a number of the downwind properties. Extruded has investigated the extent of this condition and performed remediation to the extent required by environmental laws and in accordance with a plan approved by the MDEQ in April 2011. In January 2012, Extruded submitted a final Certification Report to the MDEQ documenting its completion of that remediation. The Company provided $0.4 million in 2010 for this matter, and is pursuing potential remedies from the previous owner. The Company does not expect additional material losses associated with these environmental matters.

In November 2010, Extruded received a request for information under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act from the EPA. The focus of the EPA's information request was the Belding Facility's compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources, 40 C.F.R. § 63.11462 (Subpart TTTTTT). Extruded responded to the information request and advised the EPA of its position that it was not subject to regulation under Subpart TTTTTT. The state has requested that Extruded request an applicability determination from the EPA. The request has been made and Extruded is awaiting a response.

The estimates contained in the environmental reserves are based on assumptions that are highly subjective. Many of the remedial activities performed by the Company are pursuant to performance-based obligations imposed by various regulatory bodies in which certain standards regarding levels of contaminants must be met. The most subjective assumption that affects the estimates at these sites is the assumed length of time to comply with the remedial requirements set by the regulatory authorities. This assumption is subject to change based on the regulatory environment, unanticipated delays and events that could limit access to these sites, unforeseen negative sampling results, and other factors. Changes in any of these factors could have a material impact on future environmental expense.

Carrier ACR Tube Action

The Company has been named as a defendant in a pending litigation (the Carrier ACR Tube Action) brought by Carrier Corporation, Carrier S.A., and Carrier Italia S.p.A. (collectively, Carrier), direct purchasers of copper tube. The Carrier ACR Tube Action was filed in March 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The Carrier ACR Tube Action alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of copper tube used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-conditioning and refrigeration units. The Company and Mueller Europe, Limited (Mueller Europe) are named in the Carrier ACR Tube Action. The Carrier ACR Tube Action seeks monetary and other relief.

In July 2007, the Carrier ACR Tube Action was dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all defendants. In August 2007, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a notice of appeal from the judgment and order dismissing the complaint in the Carrier ACR Tube Action. The Company and Mueller Europe filed notices of cross-appeal in August 2007.

In October 2007, Carrier filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a motion to dismiss the cross-appeals, which the Court denied in December 2007. Briefing on the appeals occurred in May 2009 and oral argument took place in October 2009.

Pursuant to stipulations of dismissal, the Court dismissed the Company's and Mueller Europe's cross-appeals against Carrier, and Carrier's appeal as against the Company and Mueller Europe, in November 2011. This matter is now resolved.

United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review

On December 24, 2008, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico to determine the final antidumping duties owed on U.S. imports during the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008, by certain subsidiaries of the Company. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller Comercial) an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. The Company has appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision to remand the final results back to DOC to reconsider its decision. DOC is ordered to file its remand results with the CIT by April 16, 2012. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $4.2 million for this matter.

On December 23, 2009, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 19.8 percent. On August 22, 2011, the Company appealed the final results to the CIT. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $1.0 million for this matter.

On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. In August 2011, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review based on a finding that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. By the end of the year, the DOC should issue a final determination which, if the result mirrors the preliminary determination, would result in zero antidumping liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the period of review. Until the final determination is issued, however, the Company cannot estimate the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

United States Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission Antidumping Investigations

On September 30, 2009, two subsidiaries of the Company, along with Cerro Flow Products, Inc. and KobeWieland Copper Products LLC (collectively, Petitioners), jointly filed antidumping petitions with the DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico (subject imports) were being sold at less than fair value and were causing material injury (and threatening material injury) to the domestic industry. On October 1, 2010, the DOC published its final affirmative determinations, finding antidumping rates from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent for Mexico (as amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China.

On November 22, 2010, the ITC issued its final affirmative determination that subject imports from China and Mexico threatened material injury to the domestic industry. Also on November 22, 2010, the DOC published antidumping orders, with the effect that importers were required to post antidumping cash deposits at rates ranging from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent (for subject imports from Mexico) and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent (for subject imports from China).

On December 22, 2010, certain Mexican parties requested panel reviews under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to appeal the ITC final determination as to Mexico. Following a period of litigation, the last of the Mexican parties withdrew its allegations on December 8, 2011, with the effect that the ITC final determination as to Mexico shall remain in force.

On July 7, 2011, the DOC initiated a new shipper review of certain entries from a Mexican processor of copper tube, GD Affiliates S.de R.L. de C.V., in order to establish a company-specific dumping rate for this company based on the period November 22, 2010 through April 30, 2011. The review is expected to be completed sometime in 2012. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the review.

On December 31, 2011, the DOC initiated administrative reviews of several Chinese and Mexican copper tube producers and/or exporters to the United States - including IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico), Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (Mexico), Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), Golden Dragon Holding Hong Kong International Co., Ltd. (China), Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (China), Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (China), Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited (China), Luvata Alltop Zhongshan Ltd. (China), Luvata Tube Zhongshan Ltd. (China), Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd. (China), Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd. (China), Sinochem Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China), Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (China), Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd. (China), Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc. (China), and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. (China) - in order to establish company-specific dumping rates based on the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. On February 22, 2012, the DOC recinded its review of IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico). The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these reviews.

Supplier Litigation

On May 6, 2011, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, Mueller Streamline Co. (Mueller Streamline) and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles, California against a former supplier, Xiamen Lota International Co., Ltd (Xiamen Lota), its U.S. sales representative (Lota USA), and certain other persons. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants gave Peter D. Berkman, a former executive of the Company and B&K, an undisclosed interest in Lota USA, and made payments and promises of payment to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) and state law unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief. All of the foreign defendants have been served under the Hague Convention and Xiamen Lota has withdrawn its motion contesting service of process (filed July 1, 2011). On January 4, 2012, the foreign defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Company's complaint for failure to state a claim, and also joined in Lota USA's pending motion to dismiss (filed July 1, 2011). Both motions to dismiss are scheduled to be heard on April 9, 2012. On December 16, 2011, the Court granted Lota USA's motion to disqualify the Company's counsel and the Company has retained new counsel to represent it going forward in the lawsuit. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote.

On August 2, 2011, Xiamen Lota, and Lota Corp. filed suit in federal district court in Memphis, Tennessee against Mueller Industries, Inc. and Mueller Streamline (collectively Mueller). This matter involves allegations of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of dealing pursuant to which Xiamen Lota supplied Mueller with plumbing products. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, and other equitable relief. Mueller intends to vigorously defend this action. In this regard, Mueller has counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of warranty and misrepresentation. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote.

On September 30, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois, against B&K, by Xiamen Lota, and two of its employees, Yongqiang He (He) and Chuanbao Zhu (Zhu). The lawsuit alleges that B&K, a subsidiary of the Company, failed to name He as an inventor on three United States patents, U.S. patent nos. 6,880,573 ('573 Patent), 7,140,390 ('390 Patent), and 7,549,444 ('444 Patent) awarded to employees of B&K, and subsequently assigned to B&K. The '573 Patent, '390 Patent and '444 Patent pertain to frost-free valve assemblies sold by B&K. The lawsuit also alleges that B&K failed to name Zhu as an inventor on the '390 Patent. According to the complaint, He and Zhu have assigned any rights they might have in the three patents to Xiamen Lota. The claims in the lawsuit include correction of inventorship (Counts I - VI), unjust enrichment (Count VII), and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count VIII), and seek unspecified damages from B&K. The Company has answered Counts I-VI, denying all substantive allegations, and has asserted affirmative defenses. The Company has moved to dismiss Counts VII and VIII. The Company's motion to dismiss Counts VII and VIII remains pending. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote.

Litigation Settlement

The Company negotiated a settlement with Peter D. Berkman and Jeffrey A. Berkman, former executives of the Company and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that required the payment of $10.5 million in cash by Peter Berkman, Jeffrey Berkman, and Homewerks Worldwide LLC to the Company. During 2011, the Company recorded a gain of $10.5 million upon receipt of the settlement proceeds.

Leases

The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2024. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.8 million in 2012, $6.7 million in 2013, $5.0 million in 2014, $4.5 million in 2015, $3.8 million in 2016, and $6.4 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $8.8 million in 2011, $8.0 million in 2010, and $8.6 million in 2009.

Consulting Agreement

During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Harvey L. Karp, Chairman of the Board. The Consulting Agreement provides for post-employment services to be provided by Mr. Karp for a six-year period. During the first four years of the Consulting Agreement, an annual fee equal to two-thirds of the executive's Final Base Compensation (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) will be payable. During the final two years, the annual fee is set at one-third of the executive's Final Base Compensation. During the term of the Consulting Agreement, the executive agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and will be entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company. The maximum amount payable under the Consulting Agreement is $6.7 million.

On November 3, 2011, Mr. Karp notified the Company that he would resign as Chairman of the Company and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of December 31, 2011. Following his resignation, on January 1, 2012, the Consulting Agreement commenced. Based upon the value of the non-compete provisions of the Consulting Agreement, the Company will expense the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term.

Other

In November 2008, the Company's copper tube facility in Bilston, Great Britain, was damaged by fire and production was curtailed; the losses were covered by property and business interruption insurance. During 2010, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $35.3 million, net of the deductible of $0.5 million. As a result of the settlement with its insurer, all proceeds received and all costs previously deferred (which were recorded as a receivable in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $21.2 million in 2010.

In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company's copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi. Production was curtailed for approximately one week for cleanup and repairs to building structures. Certain production equipment was also extensively damaged. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In January 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and received $1.5 million; this gain will be recognized in the first quarter of 2012.

In September 2011, a portion of the Company's Wynne, Arkansas, manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. There were no reported injuries. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged requiring further assessment, which is ongoing; rehabilitation alternatives are also being evaluated. The total value of the loss, including business interruption, cannot be determined at this time, but is expected to be covered by property and business interruption insurance subject to customary deductibles. As a result of the fire, the Company reclassified to a receivable $2.7 million representing the book value of inventories and $9.6 million representing the net book value of certain production equipment and building structures that were damaged. The Company also recorded a receivable of $2.5 million for clean-up and other out of pocket costs incurred to date. Any proceeds received for property damage in excess of the net book value of the related property will be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim. The Company has received an advance of $10.0 million from the insurance company for this claim resulting in a net receivable of $4.8 million, classified as accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2011. In January 2012, the Company received a second advance from the insurance company of $40 million. The Company has deferred recognition of direct, identifiable costs associated with this matter. These costs will be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim.

Additionally, the Company is involved in certain litigation as a result of claims that arose in the ordinary course of business, which management believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also realize the benefit of certain legal claims and litigation in the future; these gain contingencies are not recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements.