Because it is an Emergency circuit, that is not being debated, but it also says; "From separate vertical switchboard sections, with or without a common bus or from individual disconnects mounted in separate enclosures."
Okay, so are you saying that 700.10(B)(5)(a) not only requires wiring for legally required and optional loads to be separate from that for emergency, but also requires that wiring for emergency loads (or at least fire pumps in particular) be separate from
other emergency loads?
Even though 695.4(B)(3)(b) refers to 700.10(B)(5), I'm not sure I see where it follows that either (i) fire pump conductors are to be separate from those serving other emergency loads or (ii) fire pumps are anything but an emergency load. Particularly in light of the admittedly non-canonical Handbook commentary after 695.4(B)(3)(b) as well as the informational note under 700.2. All I see is that fire pumps are to be treated like any other emergency system load and thus kept separate from legally required and optional standby loads. The wording in 700.10(B)(5) ahead of subpart (a) is not addressing one particular system or branch that has to be separate per subpart (a), but rather wiring for a combination of Art. 700, 701 and 702 loads. I don't see that it says there also has to be separation among Art. 700 loads.
If the intent of 695.4(B)(3)(b) was to keep fire pump emergency-side disconnecting means separate from
ALL other loads, then why not explicitly say so or reference 700.10(B)(5)(a) in particular instead of the entirety of 700.10(B)(5)? Or do you feel the commentary under 695.4(B)(3)(b) is incomplete?
And until something changes or the NFPA wants to issue an FI, it is what is and the wording is what it is. And when that takes place we can live by it, until then we will not be able to tell AHJ's that the words in 517 don't really mean anything.
I've found that AHJs are often amenable to recognizing newer editions of code that are not yet adopted in their jurisdiction if they are shown how and why the change was made and they don't have a problem with the newer language.
I can almost agree with this concerning the Emergency System verses the Equipment System unless someone wanted to compare figure 517.30 No 1 to Exhibits, 700.3, 700.4, and 700.5, of the handbook (you brought the handbook into the discussion
) where does the 700, 701, and 702 systems start?
Based on the three Exhibits in 700, where each seems to be compliant, as well as 700.10(B)(5)(d), it appears that the delineation of emergency, legally required and optional standby feeders can occur upstream of possible
system transfer switches, at the point of overcurrent protection. The commentary after 700.10(B)(5)(d) is helpful here. Article 517 would appear to address (at least for now) the particular case of an emergency system that is used in hospitals, and which is further delineated into three branches of that system.