New Safety Rule Trips Up Two Shows

LAS VEGAS—New guidelines governing the safety inspection process for temporary structures have caused the managers of at least two major tradeshows here to lose sleep recently. Referred to by their Clark County code number of TG-65, the guidelines delayed the fire department's sign-off on some exhibits at Intl. CES and CONEXPO-CON/AGG to a point that managers described as much too close to show opening for comfort.

“For us, it became a big scene, because it was the first time, and everybody sort of agreed afterward they overreacted,” said Karen Chupka, vice president of events and conferences for the Consumer Electronics Assn., which owns and produces CES.

“There's a lot of finger-pointing. Nobody wants to take responsibility,” added Megan Tanel, vice president of exhibitions for the Assn. of Equipment Manufacturers, which owns and produces CONEXPO.

CES was the first major tradeshow that had to comply with new TG-65 guidelines, adopted a year earlier, because it was the first to use one kind of temporary structure that the guidelines cover: large, hard-wall exhibits built in the outdoor parking lots of the Las Vegas Convention Center.

Chupka said the guidelines had been revised to clarify the chain of responsibility and safety inspection process for temporary structures. Under the new rules, owners of these structures would have to complete two inspections by county-approved engineers and inspectors before getting the fire department's permission to occupy them.

According to the eight-step process for TG-65-2007 described on Clark County Development Services Department's Web site, the two inspectors Chupka referred to are third-party “quality assurance agents” who must review construction documents and conduct building inspections.

Chupka said, despite the fact that CES managers filled out the paperwork to start this process in October, by Christmas nothing had been done.

“We were calling them Dec. 26, 27, 28,” she added. “Finally, (the inspectors) showed up around Jan. 2, and by then the fire chief was telling us he was going to have the structure shut down.” The show opened Jan. 7.

“I understand this process was put into place to make it clear,” Chupka said. “Yet, the two show managers who've been through the process have seen that nobody seems to understand it.”

The other manager she was referring to, Tanel, had much bigger problems. The March 11-15 CONEXPO and its collocator IFPE, the Intl. Exposition for Power Transmission, turned out to be the biggest tradeshow ever held in North America in terms of net square footage (more than 2.4 million). That was partly due to enormous individual exhibits housing full-size cranes, silos, bulldozers and the like. Between 15 and 20 exhibitors had planned structures that fell under TG-65, according to estimates by Tanel and Jim Gans, senior vice president of operations for the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority.

Tanel and Gans said TG-65 was revised following the last installment of the triennial CONEXPO in 2005. Tanel said, “We ran into the same problems then. We made it through 2005 and got involved to make sure it wouldn't happen again. (County officials) came up with all these rules and said, if we followed them, everything would be fine.”

But it wasn't. Tanel said she and other CONEXPO managers came to Las Vegas last August and met with everyone involved - Gans, the LVCC security staff, Deputy Fire Chief Girard Page, Clark County development department officials, general contractor GES Exposition Services, exhibitor-appointed contractors and Jerry Gruber, a building consultant hired by both CEA and AEM to serve as their TG-65 point-man.

“We went through it. Everyone was on the same page,” Tanel said. “He (Page) said we'd stay in communication. We kept going the way we were.”

It wasn't until five months later, when CES had its problems, that Tanel had any clue she might run into trouble. She said nobody from the city or county alerted her; instead, she got a call from Chupka. And it wasn't until Feb. 11 that her real trouble started, when a third-party reviewer said five temporary exhibit buildings had to have sprinklers and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We contacted all the contractors in the city that do sprinkler systems, and they all said there was no way, there was no water, and, even if there was, the cost would be exorbitant,” Tanel said.

In order to open, several exhibitors had to change their designs, and two had to close the second floors of their structures.

Page said, “Is TG-65 perfect? No, it's not. But we can't stick our head in the sand and not do the inspection on these buildings.” Because the safety of people, such as the 144,600 who reportedly visited CONEXPO is his responsibility, Page was uncompromising in his view of the necessity of the guidelines.

“Any time you have a building in our jurisdiction, temporary in this case, we require that they be structurally sound and their fire protection systems are adequate,” he said.

From his standpoint, the process worked successfully at the two shows despite the stress, because everyone worked together to make sure they complied and the shows opened on time.

Page added he had urged managers of both shows to begin the process several months in advance. “It's not a simple process, which is why we encourage them to go out early,” he said.

One problem, he added, is that “the folks who bring in the shows and the exhibits don't necessarily understand code. Things that are common knowledge to engineers, the show people don't know that stuff. It causes a breakdown in communication, which translated into delays and not getting the information that people needed to do their job.”

Tanel agreed that communication was key. She said once the LVCVA got involved, “they really rolled up their sleeves and worked hard to resolve this,” adding, “our partnership with Las Vegas is a good one, and we can rely on the Authority to step up to the plate and help us with this.”

Gans agreed. He said, “We weren't happy with the process and how it was carried out at CONEXPO.” The LVCVA did not participate in the formulation of TG-65, but Gans said it would get more involved now.

“What we'd like to do is make it easier to navigate, help the exhibitors, if they'll allow us to,” he added.

The LVCVA has an agreement with the county that allows the Authority, complying with county rules, to do inspections of any structures within its walls. Gans said he planned to look into the possibility of extending that agreement to structures outside.

But the biggest problem with TG-65, according to Tanel and Chupka, is that it isn't clear to begin with.

For example, according to the county's designation, TG-65 exhibits fall into the same building class as bars and nightclubs, Tanel said, and there is no clear size cutoff.

“One code said 12,000 sq. ft.; another said 10; somebody else was quoting five,” she added. “The fire department and the building department don't have rules that seem to match up.”

And, Chupka said, inspectors are not used to dealing with builders who are working under the time constraints that exhibit builders have.

“It's one thing if you miss a day or two opening a hotel,” she added. “For us, that's half our show.”