Reading the ROP to the 1996 where this came from, I say no to both ideas.
4-112- (230-70(a)): Accept Note: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to Code-Making Panels 1, 2, and 10 for comment. SUBMIT'rER: Raymond E. Harper, Seattle, WA RECOMMENDATION: A new paragraph be added to Section 230- 70(a) to read: Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in the bathrooms. A bathroom shall be as defined in Section 210-8. SUBSTANTIATION: Many bathrooms are not readily accessible when occupied and the door locked. Servicing the unprotected conductors in such a confined space with the grounded plumbing fixtures could be hazardous. This is not a proper location for a service disconnect. This would be in accord with Section 240-24(e). PANEL ACTION: Accept. PANEL STATEMENT: The Panel recommends that the Correlating Committee review this based on the actions of Panel 10 under Section 240-24(e)
#212432 - 01/06/1409:57 PMRe: Service disco/overcurrent devices in bathrooms
[Re: Steve T]
Greg, Thanks. I was looking for that link on NFPA too. Very helpful. I had recalled some language regarding 'access' to the bathroom vs. the damp or wet location substantiation. The 'access' substantiation is more helpful in dealing with the question about passing through the bathroom.
People come up with all kinds of creative ways to layout their basements.