Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 2 – Commitments and Contingencies 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 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. 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)(Plaintiffs), filed a civil 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 (Defendants). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, 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 payments to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to non-competitive and excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d) (RICO claims) and California state law unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. In October 2012, the lawsuit, together with certain related proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee, were settled on mutually agreeable terms and, in connection therewith, Mueller received a $5.8 million cash payment. Extruded Metals Class Action A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against a subsidiary of the Company, Extruded Metals, Inc., in March 2012 under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories. It is brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to Extruded Metals' operations. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A mediation between the parties will be held November 8, 2012. U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tubes Decision and 2006 Copper Fittings Decision Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the Mueller entities) have received letters from counsel for IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and from counsel for Boliden AB (Boliden) concerning contribution proceedings by IMI and Boliden against the Mueller entities regarding copper tubes. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI and Boliden have been served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants). The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tubes. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. also have received a letter from counsel for IMI concerning contribution proceedings by IMI against those three Mueller entities regarding copper fittings. In the High Court, IMI has been served with claims by 21 TP Claimants. The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 20, 2006, decision regarding copper fittings. The claims similarly purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. The letters confirm that IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI and Boliden have recently formally served their claims on the Mueller entities. While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tubes claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller is unable at this time to estimate its potential liability, if any, for the contribution claims. As to the claims arising from the Copper Tubes Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court. Canadian Dumping and Countervail Investigation In June 2006, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping of certain copper pipe fittings from the United States and from South Korea, and the dumping and subsidizing of these same goods from China. The Company and certain affiliated companies were identified by the CBSA as exporters and importers of these goods. On January 18, 2007, the CBSA issued a final determination in its investigation. The Company was found to have dumped subject goods during the CBSA's investigation period. On February 19, 2007, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) concluded that the dumping of the subject goods from the United States had caused injury to the Canadian industry. As a result of these findings, exports of subject goods to Canada by the Company made on or after October 20, 2006, have been subject to antidumping measures. Under Canada's system of prospective antidumping enforcement, the CBSA has issued normal values to the Company. Antidumping duties will be imposed on the Company only to the extent that the Company's future exports of copper pipe fittings are made at net export prices, which are below these normal values. If net export prices for subject goods exceed normal values, no antidumping duties will be payable. These measures will remain in place for five years, at which time an expiry review will be conducted by Canadian authorities to determine whether these measures should be maintained for another five years or allowed to expire. On April 8, 2011, CBSA completed a review process pursuant to which revised normal values were issued to exporters of subject goods, including the Company. In any event, given the small percentage of its products that are sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of the antidumping case in Canada. The "sunset review" process, pursuant to which Canadian authorities examined whether the dumping order should be revoked or maintained for another five years, was initiated on April 12, 2011. The results of the sunset review process were issued on February 17, 2012, and resulted in the dumping order being maintained for another five years. On September 26, 2012, the CBSA initiated another review process to which it will revise the normal values issued to exporters of subject goods, including the Company. The review is scheduled to conclude on February 8, 2013 at which time the Company and other exporters will receive the revised normal values. Given the small percentage of its products that it sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operation or cash flows as a result of this review. Lead Refinery Site On July 12, 2012, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a remedy for residential properties located north of the Lead Refinery site that consists of removal of contaminated soils. The proposed remedy is subject to further review and consideration, as well as public comment, before EPA determines whether to adopt it. There is no assurance that the remedy as proposed by EPA will be adopted, or that the EPA's current estimate of cost for the proposed remedy of approximately $29 million is reliable. Lead Refinery is currently unable to predict whether it might incur liability related to this remedy, or to estimate the extent of such liability or whether it would be material. EPA has also notified two other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) about the proposed remedy; the allocation of future remedial costs, if any, among the PRPs is unknown. Other Guarantees, in the form of letters of credit, are issued by the Company generally to assure the payment of insurance deductibles and certain retiree health benefits. The terms of the Company's guarantees are generally one year but are renewable annually as required. These letters are primarily backed by the Company's line of credit facility. The maximum payments that the Company could be required to make under its guarantees at September 29, 2012, was $10.9 million.

Note 2 – Commitments and Contingencies

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 Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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)(Plaintiffs), filed a civil 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 (Defendants). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, 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 payments to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to non-competitive and excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d) (RICO claims) and California state law unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. In October 2012, the lawsuit, together with certain related proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee, were settled on mutually agreeable terms and, in connection therewith, Mueller received a $5.8 million cash payment.

Extruded Metals Class Action

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against a subsidiary of the Company, Extruded Metals, Inc., in March 2012 under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories. It is brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to Extruded Metals' operations. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A mediation between the parties will be held November 8, 2012.

U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tubes Decision and 2006 Copper Fittings Decision

Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the Mueller entities) have received letters from counsel for IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and from counsel for Boliden AB (Boliden) concerning contribution proceedings by IMI and Boliden against the Mueller entities regarding copper tubes. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI and Boliden have been served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants). The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tubes. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision.

Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. also have received a letter from counsel for IMI concerning contribution proceedings by IMI against those three Mueller entities regarding copper fittings. In the High Court, IMI has been served with claims by 21 TP Claimants. The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 20, 2006, decision regarding copper fittings. The claims similarly purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision.

The letters confirm that IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI and Boliden have recently formally served their claims on the Mueller entities.

While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tubes claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller is unable at this time to estimate its potential liability, if any, for the contribution claims.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Tubes Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court.

Canadian Dumping and Countervail Investigation

In June 2006, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping of certain copper pipe fittings from the United States and from South Korea, and the dumping and subsidizing of these same goods from China. The Company and certain affiliated companies were identified by the CBSA as exporters and importers of these goods.

On January 18, 2007, the CBSA issued a final determination in its investigation. The Company was found to have dumped subject goods during the CBSA's investigation period. On February 19, 2007, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) concluded that the dumping of the subject goods from the United States had caused injury to the Canadian industry.

As a result of these findings, exports of subject goods to Canada by the Company made on or after October 20, 2006, have been subject to antidumping measures. Under Canada's system of prospective antidumping enforcement, the CBSA has issued normal values to the Company. Antidumping duties will be imposed on the Company only to the extent that the Company's future exports of copper pipe fittings are made at net export prices, which are below these normal values. If net export prices for subject goods exceed normal values, no antidumping duties will be payable. These measures will remain in place for five years, at which time an expiry review will be conducted by Canadian authorities to determine whether these measures should be maintained for another five years or allowed to expire.

On April 8, 2011, CBSA completed a review process pursuant to which revised normal values were issued to exporters of subject goods, including the Company. In any event, given the small percentage of its products that are sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of the antidumping case in Canada.

The "sunset review" process, pursuant to which Canadian authorities examined whether the dumping order should be revoked or maintained for another five years, was initiated on April 12, 2011. The results of the sunset review process were issued on February 17, 2012, and resulted in the dumping order being maintained for another five years.

On September 26, 2012, the CBSA initiated another review process to which it will revise the normal values issued to exporters of subject goods, including the Company. The review is scheduled to conclude on February 8, 2013 at which time the Company and other exporters will receive the revised normal values. Given the small percentage of its products that it sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operation or cash flows as a result of this review.

Lead Refinery Site

On July 12, 2012, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a remedy for residential properties located north of the Lead Refinery site that consists of removal of contaminated soils. The proposed remedy is subject to further review and consideration, as well as public comment, before EPA determines whether to adopt it. There is no assurance that the remedy as proposed by EPA will be adopted, or that the EPA's current estimate of cost for the proposed remedy of approximately $29 million is reliable. Lead Refinery is currently unable to predict whether it might incur liability related to this remedy, or to estimate the extent of such liability or whether it would be material. EPA has also notified two other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) about the proposed remedy; the allocation of future remedial costs, if any, among the PRPs is unknown.

Other

Guarantees, in the form of letters of credit, are issued by the Company generally to assure the payment of insurance deductibles and certain retiree health benefits. The terms of the Company's guarantees are generally one year but are renewable annually as required. These letters are primarily backed by the Company's line of credit facility. The maximum payments that the Company could be required to make under its guarantees at September 29, 2012, was $10.9 million.