FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 5

CPSC Recalls About 670 Sviyatp Pool Drain Covers Over Entrapment and Drowning Hazards

The agency says the covers violate the entrapment protection standards of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act; no injuries have been reported.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:04 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of Sviyatp Pool Drain Covers on July 23, 2026, according to the agency's recall notice (recall number ). The notice states the covers violate the entrapment protection standards of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, posing entrapment and drowning hazards that can cause serious injury or death. No injuries have been reported, according to the record. The describes the product as a white replacement drain cover for swimming pools, with no labeling or product identification on the item itself. It is sold in clear packaging printed with "X0050114ZZ," "SV-SP1030-001," "Sviyatp Dual Suction Outlet," and "MADE IN CHINA," and includes two stainless steel screws. The recalling firm is listed as . The agency's own recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm, a fact that says nothing about fault in this action. The says pool owners, pool operators and consumers should stop using pools with the recalled covers immediately and contact Sviyatp for a full refund. To obtain the refund, consumers are asked to remove the cover from the pool, write "RECALL" on it with a marker, photograph it and dispose of it — disabling it, if feasible, by cutting the perimeter structure to prevent reinstallation or further functional use — then email the photo to SviyatpRecall@qq.com. The agency also advises ensuring all pools and spas have VGBA-compliant drain covers and teaching children to stay away from drains. For background, and separate from this recall: a pool drain cover is the perforated plate or grate — typically molded plastic, fastened down with a couple of stainless-steel screws — that sits over a pool's submerged suction outlet, the opening through which the circulation pump draws water out of the pool. Federal rules treat it as part of a "suction outlet fitting assembly," meaning everything between the cover and the suction pipe, and the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, implemented at 16 CFR part 1450, requires new and replacement bather-accessible covers to be built, tested, marked and installed in line with the ANSI/APSP-16 standard, according to rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register, a summary on PoolSafely.gov and the trade publication Pool & Spa News. Those sources note that certification markings are normally expected on the cover, and that an assembly is considered out of compliance if its parts are cracked, damaged or broken. The part is a consumer-facing replacement item bought directly by homeowners, pool operators and pool-service professionals and fitted to an existing pool, so those affected are end users and the swimmers in their pools, plus the technicians who install them, rather than downstream manufacturers.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 57 Aug 2026, 14:04current

    Added a headline and dek and removed the 'developing matter' line; body facts unchanged.

  2. Version 47 Aug 2026, 12:02

    Rewrote the background paragraph to match the sourced reference material (Federal Register, PoolSafely.gov, Pool & Spa News), removing the New Hampshire DES attribution and service-life claim and adding the marking and damaged-parts compliance points.

  3. Version 37 Aug 2026, 07:10

    Corrected the background section to match the cited rulemaking (removed unsupported flow-rate and Pool Safely references, added the suction outlet fitting assembly definition and service-life replacement point) and flagged the event as developing.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.