Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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. 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. 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 the 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. In June 2017, the EPA requested that Lead Refinery conduct, and the Company fund, a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Lead Refinery NPL site pursuant to a proposed administrative settlement agreement and order on consent. The Company and Lead Refinery entered into that agreement in September 2017. The Company will make a capital contribution to Lead Refinery to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study and provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $1.0 million. The EPA has also informed the Company that the EPA’s position is that Mueller is a responsible party for the Lead Refinery NPL site, and accordingly is responsible for a share of remedial action and response costs at the site and in the adjacent residential area. 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. 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, 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 of 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 entered into a conciliation process with the EEOC for purposes of resolving the claims. On April 12, 2017, the Company received a letter from the EEOC stating that the conciliation process had concluded without a resolution of the claims, and that the matter would be referred to its Legal Department for potential litigation. 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. Guarantees 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 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 30, 2017 were $8.4 million.

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.

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. 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 the 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. In June 2017, the EPA requested that Lead Refinery conduct, and the Company fund, a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Lead Refinery NPL site pursuant to a proposed administrative settlement agreement and order on consent. The Company and Lead Refinery entered into that agreement in September 2017. The Company will make a capital contribution to Lead Refinery to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study and provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $1.0 million. The EPA has also informed the Company that the EPA’s position is that Mueller is a responsible party for the Lead Refinery NPL site, and accordingly is responsible for a share of remedial action and response costs at the site and in the adjacent residential area. 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.

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, 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 of 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 entered into a conciliation process with the EEOC for purposes of resolving the claims. On April 12, 2017, the Company received a letter from the EEOC stating that the conciliation process had concluded without a resolution of the claims, and that the matter would be referred to its Legal Department for potential litigation. 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.

Guarantees

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 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 30, 2017 were $8.4 million.