Patent Number: 
Section: claims

1. A method of using a computer processor for automated independent technical review, the method comprising:receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container;generating a review template;determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter based on said generating said review template, said determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter including comparing a total plutonium mass result to a qualification mass value, the comparing including:comparing said total plutonium mass result to a low qualification mass value:determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is less than said low qualification mass;comparing said total plutonium mass result to a high qualification mass value; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is greater than said high qualification mass value;determining whether a review is required if said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter;rejecting said assay result if said review is not required and said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter; andgenerating a report indicating that an expert review is required if an item description code for said radioactive waste container is not found within said assay result. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said assay result is a gamma radiation assay result. 3. The method of claim 1, further including generating a comment template if said review is required. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein said generating said review template includes:generating an assay result data field including said assay result;generating a requirements field including said predetermined parameter;generating a review field including a first instruction based on said determining whether said review is required; andgenerating a rejection field including a second instruction based on said determining whether said review is required. 5. The method of claim 1, further including:determining the identity of a material in said radioactive waste container; anddetermining whether said assay result is acceptable based on said identity of said material. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter includes determining whether a relative error for a plutonium isotope is within said predetermined parameter. 7. The method of claim 6, wherein said determining whether a relative error for a plutonium isotope is within said predetermined parameter includes:determining an absolute 3-sigma error for said plutonium isotope;determining a range for the weight percent of said plutonium isotope based on said absolute 3-sigma error; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if an accepted weapons grade weight percent is not within said range. 8. The method of claim 6, further including using a default isotopic if no measurement for said plutonium isotope is available. 9. The method of claim 6, wherein said determining whether said relative error for said plutonium isotope is within said predetermined parameter includes using a default isotopic parameter if said relative error is greater than about 70 percent. 10. The method of claim 9, wherein said relative error is based on a plutonium isotope for Pu240. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining whether the density of said radioactive waste container is within said predetermined parameter. 12. The method of claim 11, wherein said determining whether said density of said radioactive waste container is within said predetermined parameter includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said density is greater than about 2.5 grams per cubic centimeter. 13. The method of claim 11, wherein said determining whether said density of said radioactive waste container is within said predetermined parameter includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said density is less than a preselected limit. 14. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining whether a radioactive material in said radioactive waste container is lumped. 15. The method of claim 14, wherein said determining whether said radioactive material in said radioactive waste container is lumped includes comparing the mass ratio of two gamma energies. 16. The method of claim 15, wherein said comparing the ratio of said two gamma energies includes:determining the mass ratio of a 413.71 keV gamma energy to a 129.294 keV gamma energy;determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said ratio is greater than about 2.5. 17. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a total plutonium weight percent is greater than about 10 percent. 18. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a criticality safety value is greater than about 220 grams. 19. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a fissile gram equivalent at 2 sigma is greater than about 220 grams. 20. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes using a nuclide total result to compare a mass ratio of a first isotope and a second isotope. 21. The method of claim 20 wherein said first isotope is Pu239 and said second isotope is Am241. 22. The method of claim 21 wherein said using a nuclide total result to compare said mass ratio of a first isotope and a second isotope includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said mass ratio is less than about 200. 23. The method of claim 20 wherein said first isotope is Pu239 and said second isotope is Np237. 24. The method of claim 23 wherein said using a nuclide total result to compare said mass ratio of a first isotope and a second isotope includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said mass ratio is less than about 125. 25. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining a nuclide totals result for an isotope. 26. The method of claim 25, wherein said isotope is Np237. 27. The method of claim 26, wherein said determining said nuclide totals result is not performed for said isotope if the presence of said isotope is confirmed. 28. The method of claim 25, wherein said isotope is U235. 29. The method of claim 28, wherein said determining said nuclide totals result is not performed for said isotope if the presence of said isotope is confirmed. 30. The method of claim 25, wherein said isotope is U233. 31. The method of claim 25, wherein said isotope is U238. 32. The method of claim 25, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a count rate corresponding to said isotope is greater than about 5 times an error value. 33. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a 400 keV transmission source peak intensity is less than about 1 percent of a calibrated intensity. 34. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes:defining a segment of said radioactive waste container;determining whether a transmission source peak for said segment of said radioactive waste container is a low transmission source peak having an energy of less than about 400 keV; anddetermining that said assay result is within said predetermined parameter if said low transmission source peak is greater than about 0.1 percent of a calibrated intensity. 35. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes:detecting the presence of a pulser peak;determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said pulser peak is not detected; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a total number of counts in said pulser peak is less than a preset fraction of an initial count rate. 36. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes:detecting the presence of a reference source peak;determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said reference source peak is not detected; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a total number of counts in said reference source peak is less than about 50 percent of a calibrated rate. 37. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes:defining a segment of said radioactive waste container;determining a live time result for said segment;determining a real time result for said segment; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said live time result divided by said real time result is less than about 0.3. 38. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is within said predetermined parameter further includes:defining a first segment and a second segment of said radioactive waste container;detecting a first radioactivity level of said first segment;detecting a second radioactivity level of said second segment;detecting a total radioactivity level of said radioactive waste container; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said first radioactivity level and said second radioactivity level combined is greater than about 50 percent of said total radioactivity level. 39. The method of claim 38, wherein said first segment is at a bottom end of said radioactive waste container. 40. The method of claim 39, wherein said first segment is disposed against said second segment. 41. A system for automated independent technical review, the system comprising:a host system for receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container, generating a review template, determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter based on said generating said review template, determining whether a review is required if said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter, rejecting said assay result if said review is not required and said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter, and generating a report indicating that an expert review is required if an item description code for said radioactive waste container is not found within said assay result; wherein said determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter includes comparing a total plutonium mass result to a qualification mass value, the comparing including: comparing said total plutonium mass result to a low qualification mass value; determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is less than said low qualification mass; comparing said total plutonium mass result to a high qualification mass value; and determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is greater than said high qualification mass value;a network coupled to said host system; anda database coupled to said host system for storing data relating to said automated independent technical review. 42. The system of claim 41, further including:a user system coupled to said network; andsaid user system accessing said host system via said network. 43. A computer-readable storage medium encoded with machine-readable computer program code for automated independent technical review, the storage medium including instructions for causing a processor to implement a method comprising:receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container;generating a review template;determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter based on said generating said review template, said determining whether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter including comparing a total plutonium mass result to a qualification mass value, the comparing including:comparing said total plutonium mass result to a low qualification mass value;determining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is less than said low qualification mass;comparing said total plutonium mass result to a high qualification mass value; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass result is greater than said high qualification mass value;determining whether a review is required if said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter;rejecting said assay result if said review is not required and said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter; andgenerating a report indicating that an expert review is required if an item description code for said radioactive waste container is not found within said assay result.