Should set point for Pressure Relieving Device be equivalent to Design Pressure?

Hope all of you are doing well. Today's topic is focusing on the general practice sometimes followed in industry related to the set point of Pressure Relief Devices of process equipment. Many times during PHA, I have come across a general philosophy of keeping the set point of the reactor's pressure relieving devices equivalent to its design pressure. This might be adequate for a non-reactive system. But the question is, is it adequate for a reactive system?

Here, the reactive system is one where there are hazards due to a chemical reaction, including the possibility of decomposition or polymerization or some side reaction, etc. We know based on normal kinetics that the rate of reaction is directly proportional to the temperature which in turn is proportional to pressure. In simple terms, it is said that the rate of a chemical reaction doubles with every 10 deg C rise in the reaction temperature. Hence it can be said that:

Higher set pressure leads to a correspondingly higher "set" temperature (i.e. the relieving temperature).  This, in turn, leads to a higher rate of reaction which results in higher self-heating or higher temperature rise rate (dT/dt i.e. deg C/min) and a higher pressure generation rate (dP/dt i.e. bar/min). This is very important because for a chemically reactive system the required pressure relief area depends directly on the self-heating and pressure rise rates at the relief conditions.

Relief Device Sizing and worst case scenario of Over-Pressurisation

Thanks to all for overwhelming responses to the recent update on Partial Inerting and Operator Earthing.

Looking at recent incidents that have happened in India, this topic was long due to being covered here on my blog. If we look at the Hyderabad Reactor Explosion or Tarapur Explosion or the more recent Moosapet Explosion, all have been suspected to be reactor explosion because of overpressurization.

The companies who are into manufacturing sector usually size their relief devices in the designing stage, when the process to be followed is not finalized and hence they assume a base solvent and size the relief devices for its vaporization in case of an external fire.

Now if we consider the T2 Laboratories accident where MCMT (Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl) was being manufactured, an explosion which was equivalent to 1400 pounds of TNT was a case of a runaway reaction and killed 4 employees of T2 laboratories and injured 32 others. The impact was heard till 15 miles, the debris was found up to one mile away & buildings were damaged till one-quarter of a mile.