Custom software for ZZS reporting and reduction programmes
For each reduction option, the avoidance and reduction programme requires assessment of the measure's efficiency, its validation, and the operational reliability and costs of the technology. This is not text that can be produced in an afternoon. It is a body of considerations built up over years, or reconstructed just before the deadline.
What the reporting obligation requires of you
Substances of very high concern are substances that are dangerous to human health and the environment; PFAS and asbestos are well-known examples. For activities requiring a permit, a reporting obligation applies: once every five years, the company reports to the competent authority which SVHCs it emits into air and into water or sewers, and which measures it takes to prevent and limit those emissions.
This reporting comes with a prescribed avoidance and reduction programme. It describes the options for avoiding emissions at source, for example by phasing out the substance or adapting the process, and the options for reducing use and emissions within the current process.
For each reduction option, four things are required: how efficient the measure is, how that efficiency has been validated, how operationally reliable the technique is, and what it costs. A programme that only states what has been investigated, without those four, is not a programme but a list.
Emission data is also recorded in an emissions database. What ends up there arises in scattered fashion: during a measurement, a fault, a process adjustment or a replaced seal. The report is a single moment; the record beneath it runs for five years.
How we build this
The core is the combination of substance and process. A substance without a process is a list, and a process without substances is a diagram. The report requires both at once.
Which SVHCs can be present where, via which route to air or water, and under which permit condition.
Measurements, faults and findings are recorded against the relevant substance and point, rather than in loose files.
For each reduction option, the efficiency, validation, operational reliability and costs, supplemented as more becomes known.
What has been recorded over five years forms the report and the programme, rather than a search after the fact.
What the software actually does
The link between substance and process carries the whole. What else you need depends on your processes and on whether you work with an in-house environmental coordinator or with a consultancy.
Substance register per process
Which SVHCs are present where and along which routes they may be released. This is the foundation for everything that follows.
Measure with four answers
Efficiency, validation, operational reliability and costs are held as separate fields on the measure, because the programme requires all four.
Source approach alongside process approach
Phasing out or replacing is distinct from reducing within the current process. Both tracks should be visibly kept apart.
Five years of history
Measurements, faults and adjustments remain attached to the substance and point, so the previous report can be traced back.
Preparing the submission
Emissions per substance and per route, in the form the emissions database requires, built up from what has been recorded.
Maintaining the substance list
Lists are revised and substances are added. The system shows which new substance becomes relevant for which process.
Who we build for
Who builds the report differs by company. Four situations.
Environmental coordinators
They carry the report and do not want to reconstruct it every five years from mailboxes and folders.
Consultancies
Those reporting for several companies want one way of working and data recorded in the same manner at each location.
Permit holders in industry
For them the report is not a formality but the conversation with the competent authority about the years ahead.
Process and technology departments
They assess whether a reduction technique is operationally reliable, and that judgement should properly find its way into the programme.
Test your idea first: a working prototype in 1 day
With OneDayBuild, we turn your idea into something tangible in one day for €1,150, so you can see whether further development is worth the investment. Decide to go ahead with the full build? Then we credit the full cost.
Explore OneDayBuild →Technology and integrations
Substance lists are revised, permit conditions differ and measurement methods change. Substances, routes and fields should be configurable and not hard-coded.
Why Appfront
Four answers per measure, not one
The programme calls for efficiency, validation, operational reliability and cost. We build these as separate fields, so any gap is visible.
Five years is too long to remember
The justification builds up across several years. If you don't build it as you go, you end up inventing it after the fact, and you notice it the first time someone asks a follow-up question.
The substance belongs to the process
A substance list without processes says nothing about emissions. We link them, because the reporting does too.
We do not assess your emissions
Whether a measure is sufficient is a question for your adviser and the competent authority. We make sure the supporting justification is in place.
Security and privacy
Your substance and process data says something about your formulation and your operations, and the reporting touches on your relationship with the competent authority. We set access by role and by location, give an adviser only the processes they work on, and log every view. Integrations run through secure connections to your existing software.
For this subject, the reliability of the moment is what counts. A measurement value that was adjusted after the result turned out badly is no longer evidence in the next report. We record observations and justifications as unalterable entries with timestamp and person, and treat a correction as a visible amendment alongside the original entry. How we handle security ourselves is set out in our information security policy.
Frequently asked questions about the ZZS report
For permit-requiring activities, a report to the competent authority is due once every five years, covering the VOCs emitted to air and to water or sewer, and the measures taken.
The measure's efficiency, how it was validated, the operational reliability of the technology and its costs. A measure without all four is not substantiated in the programme.
Avoiding at source means phasing out the substance or changing the process. Alongside that is reducing use and emissions within the current process. The programme requires both tracks.
Yes. PFAS is cited as an example of a substance of very high concern, alongside asbestos. Which substances are relevant to your site follows from your processes and your permit.
From measurements, malfunctions and findings on site. We describe how that recording on the shop floor works on our page about the ZZS app for on-site use.
No. The judgement on what is feasible and adequate remains with your adviser and the competent authority. We build the file that judgement rests on.
Can you justify why a reduction measure was dropped?
Take one measure from your previous programme that was not implemented, and look up its efficiency, validation, operational reliability and costs. If one is missing, that question stays open for the next round. We build this as a standalone application and as part of a broader software development project.