Case 1
Total forces
X->Fxa+Fxb+Fxc
Y->Fya+Fyb+Fyc
Z->Fza+Fzb+Fzc

Total moments
MX->Mxa+Mxb+Mxc
MY->Mya+Myb+Myc
MZ->Mza+Mzb+Mzc

Case 2
Total forces
X->Fxa+Fxb+Fxc
Y->Fya+Fyb+Fyc
Z->Fza+Fzb+Fzc

Total moments
MX->Mxa+Mxb+Mxc+Fya(L)+Fyb(L)+Fyc(L)+Fza(L)+Fzb(L)+Fzc(L)
MY->Mya+Myb+Myc+Fxa(L)+Fxb(L)+Fxc(L)+Fza(L)+Fzb(L)+Fzc(L)
MZ->Mza+Mzb+Mzc+Fxa(L)+Fxb(L)+Fxc(L)+Fya(L)+Fyb(L)+Fyc(L)

Yes, you are correct in interpreting the resolved forces and moments at resolution point should be as per CASE 2. But the values mentioned in the given example in NEMA are as per CASE 2 and not as per CASE 1.
The nozzles may not be oriented in global directions always. So the example is just showing the Total resolved forces and moments acting due to overall piping configuration of all nozzles. These are not the forces and moments components acting at individual nozzle.

In the example, NEMA does not mention the components of force and moments caused by individual nozzle say Suction, Exhaust etc. What they have given is the resloved values as per CASE 2.