XML 29 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 01, 2023
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. Environmental 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. In February 2022, the Company reached a settlement with another PRP relating to these three sites. Under the terms of that agreement, the Company paid $5.6 million, which was previously reserved, in exchange for the other PRP’s agreement to conduct or fund any required remediation within the geographic boundaries of the three sites (namely, the parcel(s) on which the former smelters were located), plus coverage of certain off-site areas (namely, contamination that migrated by surface water runoff or air emissions from the Altoona or East La Harpe site, and smelter materials located within 50 feet of the geographic boundary of each site). The settlement does not cover certain matters, including potential liability related to the remediation of the town of Iola which is not estimable at this time. The other PRP will also provide an indemnity that would cover third-party cleanup claims for those sites, subject to a time limit and a cap. Altoona. 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. Construction of the remedy was completed in 2018. Under the terms of the settlement with the other PRP, the Company expects the operations and maintenance costs for this remedy to be paid for entirely by the other PRP. East La Harpe. 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 December 2018, KDHE provided a draft agreement which contemplates the use of funds KDHE obtained from two other parties (Peabody Energy and Blue Tee) to fund part of the remediation, and removes Blue Tee from the PRPs’ agreement with KDHE. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement with the other PRP noted above, the Company expects the remediation to be conducted and paid for entirely by the other PRP, and for the other PRP to negotiate and enter into an agreement with KDHE. Lanyon. 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. EPA issued an interim record of decision in 2017 and has been remediating properties at the site. According to EPA, 1,371 properties in total will be remediated, and the work will continue into 2023. 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 that 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 10-year permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2033 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. The Company currently estimates that it will spend between approximately $14.1 million and $16.1 million for remediation at these sites over the next 30 years and has accrued a reserve at the low end of this range. 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 $1.6 million and $2.4 million over the next 14 years. The Company has recorded a reserve at the low end of this range. 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 NPL 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 NPL site (zones 1 and 3 of operable unit 1) 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 operable unit 2 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 has made a capital contribution to Lead Refinery to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study with respect to operable unit 2 and has provided financial assurance in the amount of $1.0 million. The remedial investigation and feasibility study remain ongoing. The EPA has also asserted its position 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. In January 2018, the EPA issued two unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) directing the Company, Lead Refinery, and four other PRPs to conduct soil and interior remediation of certain residences at the Lead Refinery NPL site (zones 2 and 3 of operable unit 1). Subsequent thereto, the Company and Lead Refinery have reached agreement with the four other PRPs to implement these two UAOs, with the Company agreeing to pay, on an interim basis, (i) an estimated $4.5 million (subject to potential change through a future reallocation process) of the approximately $25.0 million the PRPs then estimated it would cost to implement the UAOs, which estimate is subject to change, and (ii) $2.0 million relating to past costs incurred by other PRPs for work conducted at the site, as well as the possibility of up to $0.7 million in further payments for ongoing work by those PRPs. As of July 1, 2023, the Company has made payments of approximately $7.6 million related to the aforementioned agreement with the other PRPs. The Company disputes that it was properly named in the UAOs. In March 2022, Lead Refinery entered into an administrative settlement agreement and order on consent with the EPA, along with the four other PRPs, which involves payment of certain past and future costs relating to operable unit 1, in exchange for certain releases and contribution protection for the Company, Lead Refinery, and their respective affiliates relating to that operable unit. The settlement became effective in September 2022. The Company reserved $3.3 million for this settlement at the end of 2021. In March 2018, a group of private plaintiffs sued the Company, Arava, MRRC, and Lead Refinery, along with other defendants, in civil tort action relating to the site. The Company, Arava, and MRRC have been voluntarily dismissed from that litigation without prejudice. Lead Refinery’s motion to dismiss the matter was granted without prejudice, but it has answered plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 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 in excess of the current reserve with respect to any remedial action or litigation relating to the Lead Refinery NPL site, either at Lead Refinery’s former operating site (operable unit 2) or the adjacent residential area (operable unit 1), including, but not limited to, EPA oversight costs for which the EPA may attempt to seek reimbursement from the Company, and past costs for which other PRPs may attempt to seek contribution from the Company. Bonita Peak Mining District Following an August 2015 spill from the Gold King Mine into the Animas River near Silverton, Colorado, the EPA listed the Bonita Peak Mining District on the NPL. Said listing was finalized in September 2016. The Bonita Peak Mining District encompasses 48 mining sites within the Animas River watershed, including the Sunnyside Mine, the American Tunnel, and the Sunbank Group. On or about July 25, 2017, Washington Mining Company (Washington Mining) (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Arava), received a general notice letter from the EPA stating that Washington Mining may be a PRP under CERCLA in connection with the Bonita Peak Mining District site and therefore responsible for the remediation of certain portions of the site, along with related costs incurred by the EPA. Shortly thereafter, the Company received a substantively identical letter asserting that it may be a PRP at the site and similarly responsible for the cleanup of certain portions of the site. The general notice letters identify one other PRP at the site, and do not require specific action by Washington Mining or the Company at this time. At this juncture, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a materially adverse outcome or the amount or range of a potential loss with respect to any remedial action related to the Bonita Peak Mining District 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 $0.5 million to $0.7 million over the next three years. The Company has recorded a reserve at the low end of this range. 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 would 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 and issues 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. Guarantees Guarantees, in the form of letters of credit, are issued by the Company generally to assure the payment of insurance deductibles, certain retiree health benefits, and debt at certain unconsolidated affiliates. 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 July 1, 2023 were $28.9 million.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration