Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 26, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies Environmental The Company is subject to federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $0.1 million in 2015, $1.2 million in 2014, and $1.0 million in 2013 for pending environmental matters. Environmental reserves totaled $21.7 million at December 26, 2015 and $22.7 million at December 27, 2014. As of December 26, 2015, the Company expects to spend $0.6 million in 2016, $0.6 million in 2017, $0.6 million in 2018, $0.7 million in 2019, $0.7 million in 2020, and $18.5 million thereafter for ongoing projects. 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, East La Harpe, and Lanyon). The Company is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, but is exploring possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. Another PRP conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE and submitted a removal site evaluation report recommending a remedy. The remedial plan, which covers both on-site and certain off-site cleanup costs, was approved by the agency in 2015. At the East La Harpe site, the Company and two other PRPs conducted a site study evaluation under KDHE supervision, prepared a site cleanup plan approved by KDHE in 2015, and are discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. Additionally, during 2015 the Company, with the assistance of an independent environmental consultant, estimated on-site cleanup costs for the Lanyon Site. As a result, the Company updated its estimate and decreased its reserve for its proportionate share of the remediation of the Southeast Kansas Sites from $9.5 million to $5.6 million in 2015, or four cents per diluted share after tax. 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 QCB Order, 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, and again 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. During 2015, the Company revised its future cost estimate for the remediation of this site from 20 to 30 years in order to correspond with similar studies for other sites. As a result of this change, the Company increased its reserve for the remediation of the Shasta Area Mine Sites from $10.5 million to $13.3 million in 2015, or three cents per diluted share after tax. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.3 million from 2013 through 2015 and currently estimates that it will spend between approximately $13.3 million and $20.1 million over the next 30 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 (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act since December 1996. Although the Site Activities have been substantially concluded, Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance-related 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 $0.2 million in 2015 and $0.1 million annually in 2014 and 2013 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are estimated at between $2.1 million and $5.8 million over the next 21 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 and surrounding properties to the National Priorities List. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA indicating that it may be a PRP under CERCLA due to 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 matter. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy for the surrounding properties and 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 and perform certain remedial action tasks. In 2015, the EPA conducted a review of the Company's records for the purpose of identifying parties to pay for the investigation and cleanup of properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site in connection with the November 2012 remedy. The EPA has not contacted Lead Refinery regarding settlement of the agency's potential claims related to the properties surrounding 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. 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 to remove trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP. 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 (RWP) 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 RWP regarding final remediation for the Site. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.7 million to $1.1 million over the next nine years. United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review On December 24, 2008, the 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 for the November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008 period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent in the review. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 48.33 percent. On May 25, 2010, the Company appealed the final results to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision remanding the Department's final results. While the matter was still pending, the Company and the United States reached an agreement to settle the appeal. Subject to the conditions of the agreement, the Company anticipated that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve for this matter. After the lapse of the statutory period of time during which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was required, but failed, to liquidate the entries at the settled rate, the Company released the reserve. Between October 30, 2015 and November 27, 2015, CBP sent a series of invoices to Southland Pipe Nipples Co., Inc. (Southland), requesting payment of $3.0 million in duties and interest in connection with 795 import entries made during the November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008 period. On January 26, 2016 and January 27, 2016, Southland filed protests with CBP in connection with these bills, noting that CBP's asserted claims were not made in accordance with applicable law, including statutory provisions governing deemed liquidation. The Company believes in the merits of the legal objections raised in Southland's protests, and CBP's response to Southland's protests is currently pending. Given the procedural posture of and issued raised by this legal dispute, the Company cannot estimate the amount of potential duty liability, if any, that may result from CBP's asserted claims. 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 reached an agreement to settle the appeal. Subject to the conditions of the agreement, the Company anticipated 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. The Company has paid all requested bills covering the 2008-2009 period where it appears that CBP acted in a timely manner under the antidumping statute. In connection with certain entries that the Company believes CBP failed to liquidate in a timely manner, the Company has protested the liquidations and requested that they be cancelled along with the related bills for increased duties. Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is zero anticipated antidumping duty liability with respect to the subject merchandise 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 2028. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.8 million in 2016, $5.7 million in 2017, $4.7 million in 2018, $2.2 million in 2019, $1.6 million in 2020, and $6.9 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $9.7 million in 2015, $9.8 million in 2014, and $9.1 million in 2013. 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 $1.3 million. Other 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. 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 9 – Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

The Company is subject to federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $0.1 million in 2015, $1.2 million in 2014, and $1.0 million in 2013 for pending environmental matters. Environmental reserves totaled $21.7 million at December 26, 2015 and $22.7 million at December 27, 2014. As of December 26, 2015, the Company expects to spend $0.6 million in 2016, $0.6 million in 2017, $0.6 million in 2018, $0.7 million in 2019, $0.7 million in 2020, and $18.5 million thereafter for ongoing projects.

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, East La Harpe, and Lanyon). The Company is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, but is exploring possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. Another PRP conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE and submitted a removal site evaluation report recommending a remedy. The remedial plan, which covers both on-site and certain off-site cleanup costs, was approved by the agency in 2015. At the East La Harpe site, the Company and two other PRPs conducted a site study evaluation under KDHE supervision, prepared a site cleanup plan approved by KDHE in 2015, and are discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. Additionally, during 2015 the Company, with the assistance of an independent environmental consultant, estimated on-site cleanup costs for the Lanyon Site. As a result, the Company updated its estimate and decreased its reserve for its proportionate share of the remediation of the Southeast Kansas Sites from $9.5 million to $5.6 million in 2015, or four cents per diluted share after tax.

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 QCB Order, 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, and again 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. During 2015, the Company revised its future cost estimate for the remediation of this site from 20 to 30 years in order to correspond with similar studies for other sites. As a result of this change, the Company increased its reserve for the remediation of the Shasta Area Mine Sites from $10.5 million to $13.3 million in 2015, or three cents per diluted share after tax. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.3 million from 2013 through 2015 and currently estimates that it will spend between approximately $13.3 million and $20.1 million over the next 30 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 (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act since December 1996. Although the Site Activities have been substantially concluded, Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance-related 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 $0.2 million in 2015 and $0.1 million annually in 2014 and 2013 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are estimated at between $2.1 million and $5.8 million over the next 21 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 and surrounding properties to the National Priorities List. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA indicating that it may be a PRP under CERCLA due to 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 matter. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy for the surrounding properties and 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 and perform certain remedial action tasks.

In 2015, the EPA conducted a review of the Company's records for the purpose of identifying parties to pay for the investigation and cleanup of properties surrounding the Lead Refinery site in connection with the November 2012 remedy. The EPA has not contacted Lead Refinery regarding settlement of the agency's potential claims related to the properties surrounding 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.

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 to remove trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP. 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 (RWP) 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 RWP regarding final remediation for the Site. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $0.7 million to $1.1 million over the next nine years.

United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review

On December 24, 2008, the 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 for the November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008 period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent in the review. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 48.33 percent. On May 25, 2010, the Company appealed the final results to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision remanding the Department's final results. While the matter was still pending, the Company and the United States reached an agreement to settle the appeal. Subject to the conditions of the agreement, the Company anticipated that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve for this matter. After the lapse of the statutory period of time during which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was required, but failed, to liquidate the entries at the settled rate, the Company released the reserve. Between October 30, 2015 and November 27, 2015, CBP sent a series of invoices to Southland Pipe Nipples Co., Inc. (Southland), requesting payment of $3.0 million in duties and interest in connection with 795 import entries made during the November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008 period. On January 26, 2016 and January 27, 2016, Southland filed protests with CBP in connection with these bills, noting that CBP's asserted claims were not made in accordance with applicable law, including statutory provisions governing deemed liquidation. The Company believes in the merits of the legal objections raised in Southland's protests, and CBP's response to Southland's protests is currently pending. Given the procedural posture of and issued raised by this legal dispute, the Company cannot estimate the amount of potential duty liability, if any, that may result from CBP's asserted claims.

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 reached an agreement to settle the appeal. Subject to the conditions of the agreement, the Company anticipated 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. The Company has paid all requested bills covering the 2008-2009 period where it appears that CBP acted in a timely manner under the antidumping statute. In connection with certain entries that the Company believes CBP failed to liquidate in a timely manner, the Company has protested the liquidations and requested that they be cancelled along with the related bills for increased duties.

Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is zero anticipated antidumping duty liability with respect to the subject merchandise 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 2028. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.8 million in 2016, $5.7 million in 2017, $4.7 million in 2018, $2.2 million in 2019, $1.6 million in 2020, and $6.9 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $9.7 million in 2015, $9.8 million in 2014, and $9.1 million in 2013.

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 $1.3 million.

Other

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.

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.