8.6. There are a number of key attributes that influence the quality and success of a regulatory review. These include the following:@@- The requirements and expectations of the regulatory body, as well as the criteria against which safety will be judged, should be clearly defined early in the process. The completeness and quality of the safety case and safety assessment often depend on the clarity of the regulatory requirements, and the expectations and approach of the regulatory body. @@- The regulatory review process should be free of conflicting interests, and the team of reviewers should not allow themselves to become unduly influenced during the review process by internal and external considerations that are outside the scope and terms of reference of the review. @@- The regulatory review process should be structured and traceable with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and decision making processes. @@- The regulatory body should have personnel with expertise and hands-on experience in safety assessment of radioactive waste facilities and should have either in-house expertise or should have access to specialists in all of the necessary disciplines involved in such assessment (see Ref. [44]). @@- The regulatory review should be conducted using a level of resources that is commensurate with the level of complexity of the safety case and the potential risks associated with the disposal facility under consideration. @@- Communication between the operator and the regulatory body should be maintained throughout the regulatory review process.@@- The regulatory review process should include a framework for consultation with interested parties with well defined consultation steps, rules of procedure and decision making processes. The credibility of this process can be enhanced by including means for discussion of progress and the outcome of the review process within this framework.@@- In the review process, it should be ensured that the rationale and judgements are documented as to whether or not the arguments presented in the safety case are adequately supported by the underlying science and technology, and whether these arguments are in accordance with regulatory requirements and expectations.