Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8 – 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 $1.2 million in 2014, $1.0 million in 2013, and $3.1 million in 2012 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income, net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $22.7 million at December 27, 2014 and $23.6 million at December 28, 2013. As of December 27, 2014, the Company expects to spend $0.7 million in 2015, $0.8 million in 2016, $0.7 million in 2017, $0.7 million in 2018, $0.8 million in 2019, and $9.4 million thereafter for ongoing projects. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer related to the Southeast Kansas Sites has not yet been determined. Non-operating Properties Southeast Kansas Sites The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has contacted the Company regarding environmental contamination at three former smelter sites in Kansas (Altoona, Iola and East La Harpe). While the Company believes that legally it is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, it is discussing possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Another PRP has conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE. The Company and two other PRPs have conducted a site study evaluation of the East La Harpe site under KDHE supervision, and are now discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. The EPA is in the early stages of study and remediation in the vicinity of the Iola site, which it added to the National Priority List (NPL) in May, 2013 as the “Former United Zinc & Associated Smelters” site. 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. 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 1980s, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program 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 ten-year permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2025 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2012 through 2014 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $10.5 million and $13.0 million over the next 20 years. 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 2014, 2013 and 2012 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $1.9 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 EPA added the Lead Refinery site, and properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site, to the NPL. 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. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. 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 EPA has not contacted Lead Refinery regarding settlement of the agency’s potential claims related to the properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. As of December 27, 2014, 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. 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. 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. Construction and installation of the remediation system is under way. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.8 million to $1.3 million over the next ten years. United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review 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 CIT issued its final judgment on May 2, 2013. On May 6, 2013, the Company appealed the CIT decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On May 29, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its decision vacating the CIT’s decision and remanding the case back to DOC to reconsider the Company’s rate. The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. 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. Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for periods of review after October 31, 2009. Leases The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2019. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $6.2 million in 2015, $3.9 million in 2016, $2.6 million in 2017, $2.1 million in 2018, and $0.4 million in 2019. Total lease expense amounted to $9.8 million in 2014, $9.1 million in 2013, and $8.5 million in 2012. Consulting Agreement During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Mr. Harvey L. Karp, at that time 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) is 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, Mr. Karp agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and is entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company. 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 expenses the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term. The maximum amount payable under the remaining term of the Consulting Agreement is $2.7 million. Other In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company’s copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi, resulting in damage to certain production equipment. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and recognized a $1.5 million gain. In September 2011, a portion of the Company’s Wynne, Arkansas manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged. During 2013, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $127.3 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 other current liabilities in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $106.3 million in 2013, or $1.17 per diluted share after tax. The Company received proceeds of $62.3 million and $55.0 million in 2013 and 2012, respectively. In October 2012, the Company settled a lawsuit against a former supplier. In connection with the settlement, the Company received a $5.8 million cash payment which is recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income net of legal costs. 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. It 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 8 – 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 $1.2 million in 2014, $1.0 million in 2013, and $3.1 million in 2012 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income, net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $22.7 million at December 27, 2014 and $23.6 million at December 28, 2013. As of December 27, 2014, the Company expects to spend $0.7 million in 2015, $0.8 million in 2016, $0.7 million in 2017, $0.7 million in 2018, $0.8 million in 2019, and $9.4 million thereafter for ongoing projects. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer related to the Southeast Kansas Sites has not yet been determined.

Non-operating Properties

Southeast Kansas Sites

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has contacted the Company regarding environmental contamination at three former smelter sites in Kansas (Altoona, Iola and East La Harpe). While the Company believes that legally it is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, it is discussing possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Another PRP has conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE. The Company and two other PRPs have conducted a site study evaluation of the East La Harpe site under KDHE supervision, and are now discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. The EPA is in the early stages of study and remediation in the vicinity of the Iola site, which it added to the National Priority List (NPL) in May, 2013 as the “Former United Zinc & Associated Smelters” site. 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.

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 1980s, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program 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 ten-year permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2025 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2012 through 2014 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $10.5 million and $13.0 million over the next 20 years.

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 2014, 2013 and 2012 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $1.9 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 EPA added the Lead Refinery site, and properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site, to the NPL. 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. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site. 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 EPA has not contacted Lead Refinery regarding settlement of the agency’s potential claims related to the properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site.

As of December 27, 2014, 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. 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.

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. Construction and installation of the remediation system is under way. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.8 million to $1.3 million over the next ten years.

United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review

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 CIT issued its final judgment on May 2, 2013. On May 6, 2013, the Company appealed the CIT decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On May 29, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its decision vacating the CIT’s decision and remanding the case back to DOC to reconsider the Company’s rate. The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. 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.

Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for periods of review after October 31, 2009.

Leases

The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2019. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $6.2 million in 2015, $3.9 million in 2016, $2.6 million in 2017, $2.1 million in 2018, and $0.4 million in 2019. Total lease expense amounted to $9.8 million in 2014, $9.1 million in 2013, and $8.5 million in 2012.

Consulting Agreement

During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Mr. Harvey L. Karp, at that time 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) is 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, Mr. Karp agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and is entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company.

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 expenses the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term. The maximum amount payable under the remaining term of the Consulting Agreement is $2.7 million.

Other

In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company’s copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi, resulting in damage to certain production equipment. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and recognized a $1.5 million gain.

In September 2011, a portion of the Company’s Wynne, Arkansas manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged. During 2013, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $127.3 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 other current liabilities in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $106.3 million in 2013, or $1.17 per diluted share after tax. The Company received proceeds of $62.3 million and $55.0 million in 2013 and 2012, respectively.

In October 2012, the Company settled a lawsuit against a former supplier. In connection with the settlement, the Company received a $5.8 million cash payment which is recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income net of legal costs.

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. It 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.