It is concluded that the recommendation of a single-valued temperature limit of 380/sup 0/C should be replaced by multiple limits to account for variations in fuel design, burnup level, spent fuel age, and storage cask design. A single-valued limit to account for these factors would, in some situations, impose unnecessary conservatisms and, potentially, economic penalties for utilities and storage cask vendors. The technical validity and conservatism of the CSFM model should assure acceptance by the NRC for utility and cask vendor use.