Dissolution rates for spent fuel have typically been reported in terms of a rate normalized to the surface area of the specimen. Recent evidence has shown that neither the geometric surface area nor that measured with BET accurately predicts the effective surface area of spent fuel. Dissolution rates calculated from results obtained by flow through tests were reexamined comparing the cumulative releases and surface area normalized rates. While initial surface area important for comparison of different rates, it appears that normalizing to the surface area introduces unnecessary uncertainty compared to using cumulative or fractional release rates. Discrepancies in past data analyses are mitigated using this alternative method.