As long as it doesn't affect the spray pattern and doesn't touch any sprinkler part, you'll be fine

That's not bad.. A friend of mine bought a Ryan Homes house built in 2010!.. Not sure how familiar you are with them.. But they're junk. The basement was not finished when she bought the house. With that, there is rough in plumbing for a basement bathroom with a shower they installed ..they also put the electrical panel in the corner of the basement where they installed the rough in plumbing!!!

@@GageDrums in the nec. Can't be in a bathroom. Not quite sure when this was added in the code. But a really dumb and dangerous place for a main breaker panel.

My boss gave me a book from 2017

Yup, I would much rather see them disallow backstabbing of receptacles and wiring devices to prevent arc faults than to require AFCI's on practically everything. Backstabbing is the primary arc fault source in residential from what I've seen.

Right, but then that seems to be only a workaround so they can come back later and put a receptacle where everyone wants them, and no longer allowed, on the cabinet face below. I feel I must be the bearer of bad news once again. People don't like their counters messed with.

@@pcatful , Bless your heart, that might be the case. Now that AFCI is required on basically all dwelling unit branch circuits, I think that all panels (commercial and residential) should NOT be allowed to have a neutral bus bar, instead every circuit breaker would be required to have a neutral terminal on it. The NEC is requiring more and more forms of protection for branch circuits including AFCI, GFCI, GFPE, and Surge Protection. The closer the fault can be isolated, the better the protection, better breaker microprocess of fault conditions, and easier troubleshooting for service calls. The breaker's line side neutral should just be integrated into the panel and breaker. Other wording in the NEC would also have to be revised. Section 408.40 Grounding of Panelboards would have to revise its wording that says: “Equipment grounding conductors shall not be connected to a terminal bar provided for grounded conductors or neutral conductors unless the bar is identified for the purpose and is located where interconnection between equipment grounding conductors and grounded circuit conductors is permitted or required by Part II and Part VII of Article 250.” Also Section 408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations would have to be totally revised, and the exception in this section would have to be deleted. I have seen apprentices make mistakes on commercial subpanels because they were only familiar with residential meter main panels. This change I outline would eliminate confusion, so that never would a neutral be landed on an equipment grounding conductor bus bar. I also think that Surge Protection should be addressed only in Article 210, alongside AFCI and GFCI. Surge protection should be deleted from Sections 215.18, 225.42, and 230.67. Also having the surge protection at the breaker brings up the question if all breakers should now be Double-Pole Single-Throw Circuit Breakers, with one of the poles-throws being for the neutral. Say that the voltage surge lasts a long time, maybe the breaker should open all conductors (phase and neutral). I also think that GFPE should be on a case-by-case basis, so also put it in Article 210. Thus GFPE would be deleted from Sections 210.13, 215.10, and 230.95.

You don't need any rods or anything. This is a good simplified explanation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/itmGes-mt7vFh58.htmlsi=pWShY6BtLgXrOQZu

Good morning, Chris F, and thank you for your comments! You are correct that a small segment of the video was modified to remove the reference to commercial bathrooms. The rule that was being addressed in the discussion around section 210.52(D) only applies to dwelling units. Our narrator and subject matter expert (SME) misspoke when recording the video live. We are glad it got caught and we could modify it accordingly. As far as the “base rule” term that was used, our SME had the following to share with you: “That is not an NEC term but more of a personal teaching term that I am utilizing in the video. The idea behind it is just to ingrain a basic thought for installers to know that a receptacle needs to be installed within 3 feet of any bathroom sink in dwelling units. Now that you have brought it to my attention, I will look for a better way of teaching this moving forward without using the term ‘rule’ as part of that teaching. I apologize for the error regarding the reference to commercial bathrooms in the original live recording of the video. I am human and I do make mistakes, but I will try and be more conscientious moving forward. Thank you for your feedback and have a great day!”

@@nfpalink I appreciate you getting back to me, I understand how the code evolves over time. And you caught me at a particular time when I was in an argument with another colleague of mine. And he was insistent that it was required in commercial locations. So when I try to do some research( for my argument) I came across this video and then it had me doubt my conclusion. I do understand that we look at the code as a type of ladder with a base that we build on. So when you use the terminology base rule I was wondering in my head, is this a metaphor of this concept. And I should be looking somewhere else in the code also. Trust me I get the human part, being an electrician there are things at night I think about......... "I should have done that differently" Peace, Bro.

Thanks for your question, Joel! The answer is yes! Check out a new video we uploaded today that explains how to use NFPA LiNK's Offline Mode: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/apiJgbGruL3NeaM.html