ER-
What is in Oakland but not in Anaheim is the boss. I'd rather go straight to the top than agree on a path forward with another only to have that path changed en route. Further, he is arguably the most knowlegable in the PVU and thus the best resource for consultations. And I fully agree with you on the unauthorized alterations (or repairs) issue. My point with 74Elsinore is that what he is proposing is not an alteration.
deanc-
I agree, by all means, use the AI as a resource. However, I stand on my position that an AI is not required in 74Elsinore's case. Optional vs required can be a big deal. Much depends on the facility's ability to evaluate the current condition of the vessel. I happen to work at a facility which has the necessary resources (personnel and equipment). Believe me, safety drives our decision making. If someone working in the plant gets hurt or killed because of a mistake I make, it will be me going to the hospital to visit them. Not the AI. I know the folks in the plant; the AI doesn't. The safety of our plant is personal to me; it is business to an AIA.
74Elsinore-
To be honest, I don't know where the boundary is drawn to distinguish the Anaheim from the Oakland office's territory. They do work together on technical issues, but you'll have to call one of the offices to determine which PVU AI covers Bakersfield. I suspect Anaheim. Their contact info is at
As a preferred alternative, though, use the AIA which insures the facility. As mentioned in a previous post, this may govern. At our facility, we generally consult with the State (their approval req'd for rerates, but not all alterations) but the choice of whether to use the State or an AIA inspector is left to the (qualified) contractor who is performing the work.
Bottom line: Consulting with an AI is good practice, but in this case, as a courtesy not a requirement. As metenger noted, it is best to establish and nourish the relationship between the owner/engineer and their AI and/or State.
jt