Was the company responsible for the hazardous chemical incident in Garden Grove in compliance with hazardous chemical storage requirements?

By now, most of you have heard of the ongoing emergency in Garden Grove, CA, revolving around a disastrous failure of a storage tank containing methyl methacrylate. Fears of a massive spill and/or explosion have resulted in the evacuation of thousands of residents from their homes since last Friday.

Photo Credit. GKN Aerospace logo (fair use)

Emergency response authorities such as the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) have done a great job in keeping the public informed of the current status of the emergency response. We have discussed the incident in previous articles in this blog.

However, one thing we have not personally seen, but, perhaps our readers have, is whether anyone has addressed the following:

Did GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems, the owner of the tank in question, follow/comply with required federal/state/and/or local requirements and procedures for the storage of hazardous chemicals, including the existence of an emergency response plan if required?

In all of the news reporting that we have seen (including our own) nobody has addressed this fundamental issue.

• What federal, state, and/or local regulations for the storage of methyl methacrylate, if any, applied to this facility?
• Was an emergency response plan required and in place, and if so, did GKN follow it? 
• If GKN did follow it, what went wrong in this particular situation that required outside agencies to be called in to take over the response?

It should be noted that in January of last year, GKN settled alleged violations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations to the tune of over $900,000. The Orange County Register recently reported on this in more detail. 

To be perfectly clear, we are making no accusations of wrong-doing on the part of anyone. We just would like someone to address whether the company was in compliance with existing regulations and emergency plans or not. 

And, if they were in compliance, was this particular situation, involving a tank of methyl methacrylate monomer that apparently started to polymerize and uncontrollably heat up while a control valve failed, addressed in existing plans or was it simply an unforeseen circumstance?

Please let us know in the comments below if you have any information regarding the above questions, or, if you have any other comments.