Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2013
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. Extruded Metals Class Action A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded) 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's 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 court has not yet been asked to certify a class. The Company has reached a settlement in principle that, if approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of the action. The Company and Plaintiffs are preparing documents that will embody the settlement. It is expected that Plaintiffs will file a motion for court approval of the settlement in the near future. Should the settlement not be consummated or approved, the Company will complete its discovery, oppose Plaintiffs' expected class certification motion, and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. Until the settlement is consummated and approved, or until the court rules on key motions (should the settlement not be consummated or approved), 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. U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tube 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 tube. 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 conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. 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 formally served their claims on the Mueller entities. While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tube claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller does not believe this matter will have a material affect on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the contribution claims. As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court. Mueller's defenses in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden were served on March 15, 2013. A case management conference is to be held on the first available date after March 25, 2013. As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, these proceedings have been stayed until the next case management conference which is to take place on the first available date after May 31, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to 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 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 appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. As a result, the DOC published on March 22, 2013 the amended final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 40.5 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will now assess final antidumping duties on subject imports during the period of review. The Company has established a reserve of approximately $3.8 million for these duties. 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 in the review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of the 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. On December 21, 2012, the CIT issued a decision upholding the Department's final results in part. The ruling is not yet final. Once a final ruling is issued, it may be appealed by the Company. 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 $1.1 million for this matter. On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-allow 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. On December 14, 2011, the DOC issued a final determination that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 period of review. On December 30, 2011, 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, 2010, through October 31, 2011 period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 11, 2012, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review with regard to Mueller Comercial. Following the preliminary determination, Mueller Comercial certified to the DOC that it did not have any shipments of the subject merchandise during the period of review. By June 10, 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination confirming Mueller Comercial's claim of no shipments. On December 31, 2012, 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, 2011, through October 31, 2012, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On April 3, 2013, Mueller Comercial certified that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. By the end of 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination finding that Mueller Comercial did not have any shipments of the subject merchandise. Lead Refinery Site U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of Mining Remedial Recovery Company (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 March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2012, 2011 and 2010 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.4 million and $3.6 million over the next 20 years. On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Lead Refinery site, and properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site, to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances 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 properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has identified two other PRPs in connection with the release or threat of release of hazardous substances into properties surrounding the Lead Refinery 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. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has estimated that the cost to implement the November 2012 remedy will be $29.9 million. The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of March 30, 2013, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies for the Lead Refinery site, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined for the Lead Refinery site, 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 the Lead Refinery site and adjacent properties on the NPL. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA. 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 revolving credit facility. The maximum payments that the Company could be required to make under its guarantees at March 30, 2013 were $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.

Extruded Metals Class Action

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded) 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's 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 court has not yet been asked to certify a class. The Company has reached a settlement in principle that, if approved by the court, will result in the dismissal of the action. The Company and Plaintiffs are preparing documents that will embody the settlement. It is expected that Plaintiffs will file a motion for court approval of the settlement in the near future. Should the settlement not be consummated or approved, the Company will complete its discovery, oppose Plaintiffs' expected class certification motion, and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. Until the settlement is consummated and approved, or until the court rules on key motions (should the settlement not be consummated or approved), 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.

U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tube 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 tube. 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 conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. 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 formally served their claims on the Mueller entities.

While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tube claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller does not believe this matter will have a material affect on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the contribution claims.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court. Mueller's defenses in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden were served on March 15, 2013. A case management conference is to be held on the first available date after March 25, 2013.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, these proceedings have been stayed until the next case management conference which is to take place on the first available date after May 31, 2013.

At this time, the Company is unable to 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 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 appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. As a result, the DOC published on March 22, 2013 the amended final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 40.5 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will now assess final antidumping duties on subject imports during the period of review. The Company has established a reserve of approximately $3.8 million for these duties.

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 in the review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of the 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. On December 21, 2012, the CIT issued a decision upholding the Department's final results in part. The ruling is not yet final. Once a final ruling is issued, it may be appealed by the Company. 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 $1.1 million for this matter.

On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-allow 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. On December 14, 2011, the DOC issued a final determination that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 period of review.

On December 30, 2011, 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, 2010, through October 31, 2011 period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 11, 2012, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review with regard to Mueller Comercial. Following the preliminary determination, Mueller Comercial certified to the DOC that it did not have any shipments of the subject merchandise during the period of review. By June 10, 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination confirming Mueller Comercial's claim of no shipments.

On December 31, 2012, 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, 2011, through October 31, 2012, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On April 3, 2013, Mueller Comercial certified that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. By the end of 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination finding that Mueller Comercial did not have any shipments of the subject merchandise.

Lead Refinery Site

U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of Mining Remedial Recovery Company (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 March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2012, 2011 and 2010 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.4 million and $3.6 million over the next 20 years.

On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Lead Refinery site, and properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site, to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances 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 properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has identified two other PRPs in connection with the release or threat of release of hazardous substances into properties surrounding the Lead Refinery 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. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has estimated that the cost to implement the November 2012 remedy will be $29.9 million.

The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of March 30, 2013, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies for the Lead Refinery site, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined for the Lead Refinery site, 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 the Lead Refinery site and adjacent properties on the NPL. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA.

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 revolving credit facility. The maximum payments that the Company could be required to make under its guarantees at March 30, 2013 were $10.9 million.