Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2014
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. U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission’s 2004 Copper Tube Decision and 2006 Copper Fittings Decision In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and Boliden AB (Boliden) were served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants) regarding copper tube. The TP Claimants sought follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission’s September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. The claims purported to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision (Copper Tube Decision). IMI and Boliden commenced legal proceedings against Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the five Mueller entities), and in those proceedings claimed a contribution for any follow-on damages. In the High Court in the United Kingdom, IMI was also served with claims by 21 TP Claimants regarding copper fittings. 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. IMI commenced legal proceedings against Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. (the three Mueller entities), and in those proceedings claimed a contribution for any follow-on damages. As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT’s grant of approval, the case was transferred to the High Court. Mueller’s defense in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden was served on March 15, 2013. During the second quarter of 2014, a settlement was reached in respect of the claims against Mueller and the High Court has dismissed the claims against Mueller. The total payment made by Mueller pursuant to the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, Mueller's defense in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI was served on May 30, 2014. During the third quarter of 2014, a settlement was reached in respect of the claims against Mueller and the High Court has dismissed the claims against Mueller. The total payment made by Mueller pursuant to the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Environmental Lead Refinery Site U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of Mining Remedial Recovery Company, 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 effective as of March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2013, 2012 and 2011 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 $3.9 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 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 potentially responsible party (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 $30.0 million. In September 2014, the EPA announced that it had entered into a settlement with the two other PRPs whereby they will pay approximately $26.0 million to fund the cleanup of approximately 300 properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. The Company monitors EPA press releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of September 27, 2014, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site pursuant to CERCLA, 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 any 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 September 27, 2014, were $10.6 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.

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

In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and Boliden AB (Boliden) were served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants) regarding copper tube. The TP Claimants sought follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission’s September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. The claims purported to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision (Copper Tube Decision). IMI and Boliden commenced legal proceedings against Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the five Mueller entities), and in those proceedings claimed a contribution for any follow-on damages.

In the High Court in the United Kingdom, IMI was also served with claims by 21 TP Claimants regarding copper fittings. 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. IMI commenced legal proceedings against Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. (the three Mueller entities), and in those proceedings claimed a contribution for any follow-on damages.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT’s grant of approval, the case was transferred to the High Court. Mueller’s defense in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden was served on March 15, 2013. During the second quarter of 2014, a settlement was reached in respect of the claims against Mueller and the High Court has dismissed the claims against Mueller. The total payment made by Mueller pursuant to the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, Mueller's defense in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI was served on May 30, 2014. During the third quarter of 2014, a settlement was reached in respect of the claims against Mueller and the High Court has dismissed the claims against Mueller. The total payment made by Mueller pursuant to the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Environmental

Lead Refinery Site

U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of Mining Remedial Recovery Company, 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 effective as of March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2013, 2012 and 2011 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 $3.9 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 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 potentially responsible party (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 $30.0 million. In September 2014, the EPA announced that it had entered into a settlement with the two other PRPs whereby they will pay approximately $26.0 million to fund the cleanup of approximately 300 properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site.

The Company monitors EPA press releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of September 27, 2014, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site pursuant to CERCLA, 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 any 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 September 27, 2014, were $10.6 million.