Safer Communities
Rule (SCCAP)

The 2017 amendments and their reconsideration

In January 2017, EPA finalized a set of RMP amendments responding to Executive Order 13650. The 2017 rule introduced STAA, third-party compliance audits after accidents, root cause analysis, expanded employee participation, and public information sharing. EPA delayed effective dates and ultimately rescinded most of the 2017 changes in 2019. Litigation and a change in administration set the stage for reconsidered rulemaking, culminating in the 2022 proposed rule and the 2024 SCCAP final rule.

The SCCAP rule's stated objectives

EPA articulated four main goals for SCCAP: (1) prevent chemical accidents at high-risk facilities through inherent safety analysis and stronger prevention practices; (2) improve the response to chemical accidents through better preparedness coordination; (3) enhance the rights of workers and communities to information about chemical hazards; and (4) address environmental justice concerns by focusing protections on communities most exposed to industrial chemical risks.

1. Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)

Higher-risk Program 3 facilities in specific NAICS sectors must perform STAA as part of their PHA. STAA evaluates inherent safety strategies including:

• Substitution — replacing a hazardous substance with a less hazardous alternative
• Minimization — reducing inventory of hazardous substances
• Moderation — using less hazardous conditions, dilutions, or forms
• Simplification — reducing complexity and the potential for error

Identified inherent safety alternatives must be evaluated for technical and economic feasibility, and findings documented in the PHA report.

2. Third-party compliance audits after accidents

Following an RMP-reportable accident at a Program 2 or Program 3 process, the facility's next required compliance audit must be conducted by an independent third party (or a team led by an independent third party). The third-party auditor must be free of conflicts of interest and meet specific qualification criteria. The audit report must be submitted to the EPA-designated recipient. This is intended to ensure post-accident audits are not conducted by personnel with potential bias toward downplaying findings.

3. Root cause analysis for incident investigations

Incident investigations must include formal root cause analysis using a recognized RCA methodology (e.g., the 5 Whys, fault tree analysis, fishbone, AcciMap). Findings must address management system causes, not just immediate physical causes. The investigation report and the corrective actions must reflect the root cause findings, and corrective actions must be tracked to closure.

4. Natural hazards and power loss in PHA

PHAs (and Program 2 hazard reviews) must explicitly address natural hazards (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires) and the loss of power and other utilities. The analysis should consider how natural hazards could initiate or worsen a release scenario and identify safeguards or design changes to mitigate the risk. This change reflects accidents like Arkema (Hurricane Harvey, 2017) and Wynnewood (utility power loss).

5. Employee participation enhancements

Employee participation requirements are strengthened to include opportunities for employees and their representatives to recommend stop-work orders for unsafe conditions and to participate in compliance audits, incident investigations, and emergency response training. The written employee participation plan must specify these opportunities.

6. Information sharing with workers and the public

Facilities must make specified RMP information available to employees and to the public on request:

• Names and quantities of regulated substances
• Five-year accident history
• Emergency response program summary
• LEPC contact information
• Safer technology evaluation results (where applicable)

Public information must be available within 45 days of a request, free of charge.

7. Local emergency planning enhancements

Facilities must coordinate with local responders annually (rather than periodically), including providing requested information about chemicals, scenarios, and procedures. Notification drills and tabletop or full-scale exercises are required at specified frequencies for facilities with emergency response programs.

All RMP-covered facilities

Several SCCAP provisions apply broadly to every RMP-covered facility regardless of program level or industry: root cause analysis for incident investigations, natural hazards and power loss in PHA scope (Program 2 hazard review and Program 3 PHA), employee participation enhancements, information availability to employees and the public, and enhanced LEPC coordination. Even small Program 1 facilities have new obligations under SCCAP.

Higher-risk Program 3 facilities

STAA applies to Program 3 facilities in specific NAICS sectors, focused on those with the highest accident frequency and severity. The exact sector list is in the regulatory text and includes selected chemical manufacturing, refining, and other high-hazard categories. Facilities in these sectors must perform STAA at the next PHA revalidation following the compliance date.

Facilities with RMP-reportable accidents

The third-party audit requirement is triggered by an RMP-reportable accident, regardless of NAICS sector. Any Program 2 or Program 3 facility that has an RMP-reportable accident faces an independent compliance audit at the next 3-year cycle.

Phased implementation

SCCAP uses a phased compliance schedule:

• Effective date: May 10, 2024 (60 days after publication)
• Most prevention program changes: compliance required starting May 10, 2027 (three years after effective date), aligned with the next RMP resubmission cycle
• STAA: required at the first PHA revalidation occurring after May 10, 2027
• Information sharing: compliance required starting at various dates within the phase-in window

Facilities should not wait until the compliance date to begin implementation — the substantive work (developing STAA methodology, building RCA capability, integrating natural hazards into PHA, updating employee participation plans) takes meaningful time and must be completed before the compliance deadline.

1. Map current programs against SCCAP requirements

Run a gap analysis: which SCCAP elements does your current program already address (incident investigation that already includes root cause; PHAs that already touch natural hazards), and which require new work (formal STAA methodology; third-party audit qualification criteria; documented public information availability)? A gap analysis lets you scope the implementation effort.

2. Build root cause analysis capability into incident investigation

Select an RCA methodology, train investigators, and update the incident investigation procedure to require RCA for any RMP-reportable or near-miss event. Many facilities already use RCA informally; SCCAP elevates it from "good practice" to "required documentation."

3. Update PHA scope to include natural hazards and power loss

At the next PHA or revalidation, add natural hazards and utility loss to the scenario list. For most facilities this is a meaningful expansion of the PHA scope, especially in regions with hurricane, earthquake, or wildfire exposure.

4. Refresh employee participation plans

Update the written employee participation plan to address the SCCAP enhancements: stop-work authority, audit and incident investigation participation, and emergency response training participation. Communicate the updated plan to employees and contractors.

5. Establish information availability procedures

Define how the facility will respond to public information requests within the 45-day window: who fields requests, what information is available, how it's redacted (if applicable), and how the response is documented. Pre-prepare the information package so requests can be answered promptly.

6. For higher-risk Program 3 facilities: develop STAA methodology

If your facility is in a covered NAICS sector, select an STAA methodology, train the team, and pilot the analysis on one process before full rollout. STAA quality varies widely — a perfunctory analysis is a finding waiting to happen, while a rigorous one identifies real safety improvements.

Built-in SCCAP capabilities

• Root cause analysis templates and workflows for incident investigations
• Natural hazard and utility loss scenario libraries available in PHA workflows
• STAA documentation linked to PHA findings and tracked through corrective actions
• Third-party audit support through structured audit records, evidence requests, and report submission tracking
• Employee participation tracking with stop-work order documentation, audit and investigation involvement records
• Public information availability through curated RMP record exports
• LEPC coordination records with annual coordination dates and exercise tracking