Every APS beamline is subject to the following reviews: Conceptual Design, Preliminary Design (30% completion), Final Design (90%), Construction Readiness, Commissioning Readiness, and Operational Readiness. For a given beamline, these reviews may be repeated if significant design modifications occur.

Purpose: Beamline reviews are conducted to ensure that the components and equipment are (1) optimized for the proposed scientific program and (2) satisfy all APS, ANL, and DOE requirements for safe operation. (The documentation developed for the reviews and during the review process will be kept on file in the APS User Office, permanently accessible for reference whenever information about the beamline is required.) In addition, at each review, AutoCAD drawings of the beamline and its components will be filed in the APS Design Exchange (DX), which will enable current electronic or paper copies of beamline layout to be accessed as needed.

Participants: Conceptual Design Reviews are conducted by the APS Instrumentation Feasibility Committee who report their findings to the APS. All other beamline reviews are conducted by the APS Beamline Review Committee, which is made up of members of the APS staff who can assess the beamline design, as well as construction, operation, and ES&H requirements. The APS may choose to expand the committee as needed in the review process.

Process: All reviews should be scheduled through the APS User Office.

Conceptual Design Reviews: For these reviews, 10 copies of a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) should be submitted to the APS User Office. Review Committee members will review the CDR and, if necessary, arrange to have the User Office schedule a meeting with the CAT. When the Review Committee has prepared its recommendations, it will transmit them to the APS for approval.

Preliminary and Final Design Reviews:

For these reviews, 15 copies of a Preliminary or Final Design Report (PDR or FDR) should be submitted to the APS User Office. Review Committee members will review the design report, evaluating it according to the criteria detailed in the guidelines in Section II. This process may involve several iterations between the Review Committee and the CAT.