Critics of the Army's chemical weapons incinerator called again today for an independent investigation of last week's accidental release of nerve agent. Part of the reason: Reliable facts seem to be hard to come by. Environment Specialist John Hollenhorst has more.

It's been difficult to get accurate, detailed information about the incident, partly because the investigators themselves aren't talking. Their report is probably two or three weeks away. And officials who are talking seem to have had some trouble getting their facts straight.

The morning after escaping nerve agent triggered alarms at the incinerator, a top state regulator sent an e-mail alert to the Governor's science advisor, who passed it on to other officials.

The e-mail said the highest nerve-agent concentration was 8.7 times higher than allowed. Later, incinerator officials said it was less than half that, 3.6 times higher than allowed. Now, state regulators say, their e-mail message was wrong.

DENNIS DOWNS/UTAH DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: "OUR PEOPLE FOULED UP."

A top official apparently misread a computer display and conversion chart.

DENNIS DOWN/UTAH DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: "WE CONFIRMED THAT THE ARMY RELEASED NUMBERS WERE CORRECT."

Another issue we asked about stirred up more contradictory answers: How did experts calculate how much nerve agent escaped? They've said a critical flow meter failed and helped trigger the incident. But how could they measure the flow of gases without the meter?

Initially, the president of the company that runs the incinerator told us they fixed the meter just before the release, and used that to calculate the nerve agent release. Later he called back to say his engineers corrected him: There was a seperate meter in the stack that provided the crucial data.

Until today, state regulators hadn't even reviewed the data to determine for themselves how much nerve agent escaped.

DENNIS DOWN/UTAH DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: "WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT INFORMATION AND WE WILL DO AN INDEPENEDENT CALCULATION OF THAT."

Critics say they see a pattern that suggests sloppy oversight or deliberate coverup.

JASON GROENEWOLD/FAMILIES AGAINST INCINERATOR RISK: "AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATION IS CRUCIAL HERE, TO SORT OUT THE DETAILS AND RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS AND STORIES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD."