Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 – 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 $0.9 million in 2016, $0.1 million in 2015, and $1.2 million in 2014 for pending environmental matters. Environmental reserves totaled $21.9 million at December 31, 2016 and $21.7 million at December 26, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the Company expects to spend $0.7 million in 2017, $0.6 million in 2018, $0.6 million in 2019, $0.7 million in 2020, $0.7 million in 2021, and $18.6 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 design plan, which covers both on-site and certain off-site cleanup costs, was approved by the KDHE in 2016. At the East La Harpe site, the Company and two other PRPs conducted a site study evaluation under KDHE supervision and prepared a site cleanup plan approved by KDHE. In 2016, the corporate parent of a third party that the Company understands may owe indemnification obligations to one of the other PRPs in connection with the East La Harpe site filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. KDHE has extended the deadline for the PRPs to develop a repository design plan to allow for wetlands permitting to take place. With respect to the Lanyon Site, in 2016, the Company received a general notice letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserting that the Company is a PRP, which the Company has denied. The Company's reserve for its proportionate share of the remediation costs associated with the Southeast Kansas sites is $5.6 million. 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 implementing various remedial measures, including sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in portals 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. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.2 million from 2014 through 2016 for remediation, and currently estimates that it will spend between approximately $13.2 million and $20.9 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 $0.5 million from 2014 through 2016 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 $4.7 million over the next 20 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 (NPL). 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 identified two other PRPs in connection with that 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. On November 8, 2016, the Company, its subsidiary Arava Natural Resources Company, Inc. (Arava), and Arava's subsidiary MRRC each received general notice letters from EPA asserting that they may be PRPs in connection with the Lead Refinery NPL site. The Company, Arava, and MRRC have denied liability for any remedial action and response costs associated with the Lead Refinery NPL site. At this juncture, 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 any remedial action related to the Lead Refinery NPL site. 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 estimated to approximate $0.9 million to $1.4 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 approximately $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 invoices, 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. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Matter On October 5, 2016, the Company received a demand letter from the Los Angeles District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleges that between May 2011 and April 2015, various Company employees were terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that certain of the Company's employee leave and attendance policies were discriminatory in nature. On that basis, the EEOC's letter includes a demand for monetary relief on behalf an identified class of 20 individuals, and an unidentified class of 150 individuals, in addition to injunctive relief. The Company believes the EEOC's allegations are without merit. Notwithstanding the Company's position, in consultation with its liability insurers, the Company has entered into a conciliation process with the EEOC for purposes of resolving the claims and avoiding litigation. In connection with that conciliation effort, the Company has communicated to the EEOC a monetary settlement proposal within its applicable insurance limits. The conciliation process is ongoing. Due to the procedural stage of this matter, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in this matter, or the amount or range of a potential loss in excess of any available insurance coverage. 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 $7.4 million in 2017, $5.7 million in 2018, $3.3 million in 2019, $2.7 million in 2020, $2.5 million in 2021, and $9.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $11.6 million in 2016, $9.7 million in 2015, and $9.8 million in 2014. Other 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 13 – 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 $0.9 million in 2016, $0.1 million in 2015, and $1.2 million in 2014 for pending environmental matters. Environmental reserves totaled $21.9 million at December 31, 2016 and $21.7 million at December 26, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the Company expects to spend $0.7 million in 2017, $0.6 million in 2018, $0.6 million in 2019, $0.7 million in 2020, $0.7 million in 2021, and $18.6 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 design plan, which covers both on-site and certain off-site cleanup costs, was approved by the KDHE in 2016. At the East La Harpe site, the Company and two other PRPs conducted a site study evaluation under KDHE supervision and prepared a site cleanup plan approved by KDHE. In 2016, the corporate parent of a third party that the Company understands may owe indemnification obligations to one of the other PRPs in connection with the East La Harpe site filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. KDHE has extended the deadline for the PRPs to develop a repository design plan to allow for wetlands permitting to take place. With respect to the Lanyon Site, in 2016, the Company received a general notice letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserting that the Company is a PRP, which the Company has denied. The Company's reserve for its proportionate share of the remediation costs associated with the Southeast Kansas sites is $5.6 million.

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 implementing various remedial measures, including sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in portals 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. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.2 million from 2014 through 2016 for remediation, and currently estimates that it will spend between approximately $13.2 million and $20.9 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 $0.5 million from 2014 through 2016 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 $4.7 million over the next 20 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 (NPL). 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 identified two other PRPs in connection with that 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.

On November 8, 2016, the Company, its subsidiary Arava Natural Resources Company, Inc. (Arava), and Arava's subsidiary MRRC each received general notice letters from EPA asserting that they may be PRPs in connection with the Lead Refinery NPL site. The Company, Arava, and MRRC have denied liability for any remedial action and response costs associated with the Lead Refinery NPL site. At this juncture, 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 any remedial action related to the Lead Refinery NPL site.

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 estimated to approximate $0.9 million to $1.4 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 approximately $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 invoices, 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.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Matter

On October 5, 2016, the Company received a demand letter from the Los Angeles District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleges that between May 2011 and April 2015, various Company employees were terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that certain of the Company's employee leave and attendance policies were discriminatory in nature. On that basis, the EEOC's letter includes a demand for monetary relief on behalf an identified class of 20 individuals, and an unidentified class of 150 individuals, in addition to injunctive relief.

The Company believes the EEOC's allegations are without merit. Notwithstanding the Company's position, in consultation with its liability insurers, the Company has entered into a conciliation process with the EEOC for purposes of resolving the claims and avoiding litigation. In connection with that conciliation effort, the Company has communicated to the EEOC a monetary settlement proposal within its applicable insurance limits. The conciliation process is ongoing. Due to the procedural stage of this matter, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in this matter, or the amount or range of a potential loss in excess of any available insurance coverage.

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 $7.4 million in 2017, $5.7 million in 2018, $3.3 million in 2019, $2.7 million in 2020, $2.5 million in 2021, and $9.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $11.6 million in 2016, $9.7 million in 2015, and $9.8 million in 2014.

Other

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.