Surge Protector Safety Alert

Status
Not open for further replies.
goldstar

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Just checking to see if anyone has used these Sycom surge protectors and what you are doing about it :

http://www.pceca.net/images/stories/sycom_safety_alert.pdf

I've purchased about 18 of these direct from the company over the course of 5 or 6 years. That means I'll have to back through all my billing records and check to see where I've installed these. This is going to be a hefty hit if I have to replace these at my own expense. I plan to contact the company today and see what their position is. If I find out I'll post it here.

BTW, I've since found that they are available from HD.
 
Ugh... saw that article. I was putting them in for years cause I had a bunch left over from when my dad sold his franchise business.

Ive seen one cause a fire before, it happened when the utility dropped a neutral after they changed out the customer's transformer. The device was inside the panel, so i had to replace the whole thing. Utility swore up and down that their neutral was good, and it was on the customer's end. I couldn't find anything wrong on the customer's end though...

I changed the panel, and put in a new SYCOM. Turned on the power incrementally, and when i got to the sycom smoke shot out of it. The utility finally put the effort in and discovered their tap at the tranny was bad, so it was a lost neutral.

My point being that the article talks about the 5 surge arrestors causing a fire in one town... did the towns poco mess something up that caused these surge protectors to burn up? Im not defending sycom, this trait is unacceptable in a consumer surge protector.

But i think there had to have been a catalyst for these events. Perhaps its that the surge arrestors are clamping the spikes in voltage we see on lost neutrals for an extended period of time. Something the sycoms might not do very well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
WarrMann said:
Ugh... saw that article. I was putting them in for years cause I had a bunch left over from when my dad sold his franchise business.

Ive seen one cause a fire before, it happened when the utility dropped a neutral after they changed out the customer's transformer. The device was inside the panel, so i had to replace the whole thing. Utility swore up and down that their neutral was good, and it was on the customer's end. I couldn't find anything wrong on the customer's end though...

I changed the panel, and put in a new SYCOM. Turned on the power incrementally, and when i got to the sycom smoke shot out of it. The utility finally put the effort in and discovered their tap at the tranny was bad, so it was a lost neutral.

My point being that the article talks about the 5 surge arrestors causing a fire in one town... did the towns poco mess something up that caused these surge protectors to burn up? Im not defending sycom, this trait is unacceptable in a consumer surge protector.

But i think there had to have been a catalyst for these events. Perhaps its that the surge arrestors are clamping the spikes in voltage we see on lost neutrals for an extended period of time. Something the sycoms might not do very well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with you. Why 5 of these devices in the same town ? I think it might have been presumptuous of Mike Holt to post this alert without doing some investigation. If anyone else knows more about this please post it here.
 
The thing about the lost neutral.. yours is not the first story I heard about this problem. But, in that case think that Tersh might have a problem. Would think I would see more problems in Jamaica as well, due to downed tree problems after storms, etc...

But, we are not seeing the problems so... could it be a simple production fault or defective part, affecting one out of a million type?
 
The article also said it was the fire men who decided what caused the fire. If i was sycom, I'd get someone out there and ask to see service records from the poco. Again.. not defending sycom



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
I always believe in you get what you pay for. The Sycom unit used to sell for around $29 when their salesmen use to call us trying to get us to buy from them. The Eaton unit went for around $99 & came with a warranty covering everything in the home. The Sycom unit warranty excluded electronics which are usually the 1st times to go with a spike across the line when the utility co XFMR blows on the pole.
 
OK. I just spoke with a rep from Sycom and she advised me that the issue that was stated in Mike Holt's news alert had to do with improperly installed T2 units. It seems that the electrician had installed them on AC disconnects and never bothered to check the quality of the ground. If the unit is not properly grounded it cannot withstand a high impedance load for a sustained amount of time. The unit could potentially get red hot and depending on what it is mounted to could possibly cause that material to burn. Since this UL release on this potential danger was published :

http://sycomsurge.com/index.php/product-news/syc-120-240-t2-ul-release/

Sycom has ceased to produce these units and is now making T1 units. I personally have only installed these T2 units on main breaker panels and have never had a problem.

FWIW, I have never paid as little as $22.00 for these units. The last shipment I received back in 2016 was $$44.00@ + shipping. I think it would behoove Mike Holt to either issue a retraction of his alert or at least offer a more detailed explanation of the issue to his subscribers, IMHO. The occurrences in Cary, NC took place over the last 3 years and all had to do with faulty grounds. However, the journalist who wrote the article made it sound like the entire township of Cary was in dire straights because of these units and should hire electricians to come and correct these problems immediately.
 
That statement from the manfacturer is total nonsense. Even if what they are stating is true that does not make them safe by any stretch. The UL notice is what counts. Mike Holt done nothing wrong in reporting this.
 
chicagosparky said:
I always believe in you get what you pay for...
Click to expand...

You nailed it on the head!
I checked these out online and they just LOOK like cheap junk.
No offense to anyone here, but what do you expect when you buy something like this for under $50?
Its a bit like buying cheap brakes for you car then crying the blues when you get in an accident.
When you go cheap, you pay the price in the long run.
Who is this "Superco" company anyway? Will they even be in business long enough to stand behind their crappy product? Who knows?
As a contractor I have to stand behind what I sell, so when looking for products I go with reputable manufactures who are in it for the long haul.
Leviton, Lutron, Phillips, Siemens to name a few have stood the test of time and are not going anywhere.
This is what we use: https://www.amazon.ca/Siemens-FS140...ocphy=9047906&hvtargid=pla-315970290468&psc=1
However you can buy them for half the price from the supply house.
They have LED indicators for unit status and will sound an alarm if the device fails.
There's a 3 phase version, but its considerably more expensive.
If you want something even better, I believe Leviton makes one with a NO set of dry contacts on it.
You can connect it to you security or automation system and be notified remotely if the device fails.
If you think your customers won't pay for these, consider that the average home in the USA/Can has anywhere from 10k-20k worth of electronics or items containing electronics.
You also have to let your customer know that NOTHING will provide them with 100% protection from surges and that they need to register the warranty card if they want the 20k or 50k insurance (can't remember how much they insure you for offhand).
I routinely sell these as a package with the TV/TEL protector as well, completely installed for over $600ea and they are one of our best selling (and highest profit) items.
 
texie said:
That statement from the manfacturer is total nonsense. Even if what they are stating is true that does not make them safe by any stretch. The UL notice is what counts. Mike Holt done nothing wrong in reporting this.
Click to expand...
The alert that Mike Holt sent out was not characteristic of what Mike Holt normally does. If you analyze the wording in the alert you'll find :
Investigators in Cary, NC have determined that a house fire in December was linked to a faulty surge protector.
Click to expand...
Jessica Patrick, WRAL digital journalist reports that the December 28 fire is at least the fifth in Cary to be connected to a specific kind of surge protector which is often installed with heating and air conditioners.
Click to expand...
Homeowners are asked to spread the word and check their surge protectors. In the most recent fire, investigators determined that a Supco surge protector on the home's A/C unit caught fire, scorching the side of the home.
Click to expand...
Where would you think the reader's eyes will go when reading this ? Directly to Sycom is at fault just like you did. I can't say that I blame you because I made the same mistake until I did my own research. Mike Holt is a trusted source on the NEC and readers will automatically take him at his word (if he in fact published this alert himself).

This is a link to the Sycom instruction page :
http://www.pceca.net/images/stories/sycom_t-2_instructions.pdf
The unit is designed to be installed on service equipment and not remotely on A/C disconnects.

IMHO, this should have been mentioned, if not by the journalist, at least by whomever it was in Mike Holt's employ who handles these alert publications.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Yes, the UL notice is what counts and upon receiving that notice Sycom stopped manufacturing that unit. That doesn't absolve the electrician from improperly installing the unit.
 
goldstar said:
OK. I just spoke with a rep from Sycom and she advised me that the issue that was stated in Mike Holt's news alert had to do with improperly installed T2 units. It seems that the electrician had installed them on AC disconnects and never bothered to check the quality of the ground. If the unit is not properly grounded it cannot withstand a high impedance load for a sustained amount of time. The unit could potentially get red hot and depending on what it is mounted to could possibly cause that material to burn. Since this UL release on this potential danger was published :

http://sycomsurge.com/index.php/product-news/syc-120-240-t2-ul-release/

Sycom has ceased to produce these units and is now making T1 units. I personally have only installed these T2 units on main breaker panels and have never had a problem.

FWIW, I have never paid as little as $22.00 for these units. The last shipment I received back in 2016 was $$44.00@ + shipping. I think it would behoove Mike Holt to either issue a retraction of his alert or at least offer a more detailed explanation of the issue to his subscribers, IMHO. The occurrences in Cary, NC took place over the last 3 years and all had to do with faulty grounds. However, the journalist who wrote the article made it sound like the entire township of Cary was in dire straights because of these units and should hire electricians to come and correct these problems immediately.
Click to expand...

Is this a UL based recall or not?
:?
~RJ~
 
goldstar said:
The alert that Mike Holt sent out was not characteristic of what Mike Holt normally does. If you analyze the wording in the alert you'll find :Where would you think the reader's eyes will go when reading this ? Directly to Sycom is at fault just like you did. I can't say that I blame you because I made the same mistake until I did my own research. Mike Holt is a trusted source on the NEC and readers will automatically take him at his word (if he in fact published this alert himself).

This is a link to the Sycom instruction page :
http://www.pceca.net/images/stories/sycom_t-2_instructions.pdf
The unit is designed to be installed on service equipment and not remotely on A/C disconnects.

IMHO, this should have been mentioned, if not by the journalist, at least by whomever it was in Mike Holt's employ who handles these alert publications.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Yes, the UL notice is what counts and upon receiving that notice Sycom stopped manufacturing that unit. That doesn't absolve the electrician from improperly installing the unit.
Click to expand...

A type 2 surge protector can be installed anywhere downstream of the service. Any device that catches fire because of an alleged lack of "ground" is dangerous. What more is there to say-UL's official position is it's dangerous.
 
sameguy said:
Firemen = when in doubt, electrical fire !
Click to expand...

Which is great for EC's. The more nervous the general public is about their electrical service, the more they spend on maintenance. The biggest problem I fight with clients and potential clients is apathy about safety issues.

goldstar said:
However, the journalist who wrote the article made it sound like the entire township of Cary was in dire straights because of these units and should hire electricians to come and correct these problems immediately.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
texie said:
A type 2 surge protector can be installed anywhere downstream of the service. Any device that catches fire because of an alleged lack of "ground" is dangerous. What more is there to say-UL's official position is it's dangerous.
Click to expand...
I'm not in agreement with that part of your statement shown above in BOLD.

From the Sycom instruction sheet
2. Type 2 SPD's are designed for installation on the load side of the service equipment over-current device.
Click to expand...
In addition, part B # 4 of the instructions state :
4. Install the 120/240-T2 on the load side of a two-pole, 240 volt circuit breaker (20a - 60a recommended)
Click to expand...
If you believe that any other manufacturer's SPD's can be installed downstream of the service please read their instructions first. You may end up being 100% correct in those cases but I don't think you are in this case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top