This month the NRC celebrated the one-year anniversary of the publication of its Open Government Plan and posted a self assessment of progress to date on the agency’s Open Government page .
One of the highlights was the inauguration of this blog, which played a key role in informing the public of our response to the Japanese event. Another was that NRC exceeded its first year goals for the publication of high-value datasets, with 21 high-value datasets published, significantly more than the 11 identified in the plan.
The self assessment also noted that the agency ranked 11th out of 32 federal agencies on transparency based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) surveys of federal websites. The ACSI survey also showed positive results from the release of the agency’s unified public Web search in December 2010, with the site search satisfaction score improving from 68 before the new search to 73 at the end of March 2011.
As we move into the second year of the Open Government initiative, one thing that would help guide our efforts would be to get more input from you, our stakeholders and members of the public. In particular, what additional datasets you would like us to make available through data.gov? Is there other information about our activities that you need? We hope you’ll take a few minutes to tell what you think by posting a comment to this blog or by using our Online Comment Form.Frances Goldberg Co-Chair NRC Open Government Advisory Group
6 thoughts on “One-Year Anniversary of NRC’s Open Government Plan – Your Suggestions Welcome!”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for monitoring radiation levels in the U.S. The program is called RadNet. You can get more information, and its results, here: http://www2.epa.gov/radnet
I would like to see a report containing daily radiation readings from Fukushima fallout starting from 3-11-11 to present and would like for the United States of America to be the focus of such report . I would like a list of monitoring stations which conduct these tests. I would like to know where this data can be obtained. I would like to know the levels of Cesium 137 and 134 that the government considers safe for humans as of 5-1-15 and what was considered safe as of 3-1-11.
There are many federal agencies with some area of responsibility for nuclear emergencies in the U.S., including Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Centers for Disease Control, FEMA and others. If the emergencies happen overseas, they may also involve the Department of State, Department of Defense, etc. We understand it can get confusing. Look for a blog post in the future outlining “who does what.”
Thank you. It just seemed to make sense that all the information should be available in one place. Also, the EPA recently announced that they were going to stop daily monitoring of the Fukushima fallout and go back to regular weekly monitoring. I’m not sure why that makes sense if the breached reactors are still emitting radiation. Maybe most of the fallout was from the explosion in the spent fuel pond at reactor 3, which sent so much material high enough to get into the jet stream. Anyway, thank you for your response. I will check the website you have listed. The more open and forthcoming our governments the better.
The EPA is the U.S. government agency responsible for monitoring radiation levels in this country. EPA monitoring information is available here: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/
My suggestion is that you begin to publish daily radiation readings from Japan and across the pacific, & across the usa. Every indication is that not only has one or more containment vessels beeen breached, but that unusually high amount of “fresh” I-131 indicates ongoing or intermittent criticality somewhere. Also, release any data you have on the explosion at reactor 3, possibly an explosion of the spent fuel pool. The public is not idiotic. If you care about public safety, start posting the actual data on your website instead of forcing Americans to go to Norway or austria for online atmospheric data. there’s no reason for the EPA Radnet data not to be easily available and analysed here.
Comments are closed.