Hanford got dubbed a "bureaucratic Beirut" Friday.

The term surfaced as Hanford Advisory Board members wrestled with an inertia that's plaguing board members and Hanford cleanup.

The 32-member Hanford Advisory Board represents the entire Hanford political spectrum from regional activist groups to Tri-City interests.

The board provides feedback and suggestions to the Department of Energy and Hanford's regulatory agencies.

Since any board stance requires near unanimous consent, it has been highly influential on Hanford matters.

However in recent months, board members grew frustrated about the board's effectiveness in pushing cleanup forward.

The board's discussions often ramble. Meetings are split among numerous large and small issues. Board members argue about whether they are micromanaging too much, and whether they are tackling the big picture. The board's positions get watered down to accommodate a wide variety of interests.

Board members also expressed frustration that they cannot point to the completion of any major, tangible project that is visible to anyone outside of inner Hanford circles. That's despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on cleanup, members complained.

Cleanup plans keep changing. New problems keep appearing. Money is always a worry.

"There are people on the site who know what has to be done, and are champing at the bit. ... But we have so many plans to get to the plans, that the jobs are not getting done," said board member Lynne Stembridge, of the Hanford Education Action League.

On Friday, board members discussed zeroing in on fewer major issues while still keeping tabs on lower priority items. The board has not selected yet what its top priorities should be. The board also looked at several internal structural and procedural changes to make it function more effectively. And it talked about a possible "summit meeting" with advisory boards at other DOE sites in 1998.

Members also talked about being more aggressive in holding DOE to cleanup obligations, especially deadlines set by the so-called Tri- Party Agreement between DOE and state and federal regulators.

"We need to intimately know the teeth of the law of the (Tri-Party pact)," said board member Paige Knight of Hanford Watch, a DOE watchdog group.