First there is the particulate proposal and review panel commentary, both downloadable, here. This is the NRRI study in concert with the U.Minn, Twin Cities School of Public Health study of taconite health-related difficulties and cancer deaths.
There is the "EGG," Economic Geology Group, publication page, here.
For those interested in the issue of taconite tailings use in road paving, in light of there now being a pending health impact study of Iron Range ambient and mine dust particulates and miner mesithelioma [an almost always fatal cancer of the inner ribcage lining surrounding the lungs], that EGG publications page lists in its "TACONITE AGGREGATE AND TAILINGS" section (three quarters down the page), two Larry Zanko authored progress reports, one from 2006 and the other from 2007 w/o any indication of whether there were/were not others; those two downloadable here and here.
Whether or not others were produced before 2008 but not published online, Zanko or others at that public agency would have to say.
Larry Zanko of NRRI had done a cursory 18-sample review of asbestos fiber presence/absence in taconite tailings collected from Mesabi mines, and published about that in a peer reviewed journal. However, that is irrelevant and begs the question of whether the taconite materials in tailings, apart from asbestos being there or absent, is itself a hazardous carcinogenic material. That is what worries miners and people wanting the paving in front of their homes to be safe. That report, but not the journal item, can be downloaded online, here.
Apart from that item on asbestos, each of the two online NRRI "progress reports" on promoting taconite tailings use in paving has Tinklenberg Group reports to NRRI appended, and some Tinklenberg Group activity is reported in the body of at least one of those items.
Larry Zanko was courteous to email the Jan. 2008 report in response to a public data disclosure request. I have it saved as TSR_2008_01, which I recall to be NRRI's designation. It is a report which is yet to be put online.
That most current report I have includes additional more recent reporting to NRRI by the Tinklenberg Group, indicating that while Elwyn Tinklenberg was lobbying state/and/or/local agencies on behalf of the Stone's Throw development and in particular over a lobbied-for Brocton Ln. - I-94 interchange in Hennepin County, (with Tinklenberg registered as a lobbyist for Hassan Mainstreet, LLC, with the Campaign Finance Board); he was also lobbying for [an apparently extensive] use of taconite tailings within that solicited project, but not disclosing that lobbying connection - done apparently in conjunction with Hassan Mainstreet, LLC effort, on behalf of the NRRI aim/goal of shipping taconite tailings statewide as if safe for use as paving aggregate [even while the particulate - health study was being contemplated and mapped in scope].
This example page [click to enlarge and read] is representative but not exhaustive of his reporting of that type of activity, as justification he was presenting NRRI for fees Tinklenberg Group presumably invoiced to NRRI, outside of the published reporting:
I have been informed in response to a data disclosure request that $94,280 total fees were paid Tinklenberg Group by NRRI, without any itemized breakdown. So fees were being generated, it was not pro bono work, and yet he declined to register one lobbying effort, for a fee, while registering the other for a fee actions, on the identical project, the proposed highway interchange. It seems a clear breach of CFB lobbyist registration requirements.
MnDOT has only considered road engineering suitability; NOT health, not health to any degree determinable from the scant public data request Ms. Susan F. Stein provided. It is a non-issue with MnDOT, apparently, whether it causes cancer or not. Not my department thinking from the falling bridge people. Irresponsible is one word coming to mind, but here is the MnDOT concern, mirrored in an example page:
It is most troubling, the health study is barely started; and MnDOT is not imposing any moratorium on the questionable use of this questionable material. What if it had been used in an 8 or 9-figure multimillion dollar interchange effort, and then found a health hazard. Would it be ripped out? That is less likely than having it quietly left, a commuters beware version of caveat emptor.
________UPDATE________
Tinklenberg's 2007 lobbyist reports can be downloaded here, for two entities, the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority, and Hassan Mainstreet, LLC. He reports over the year, both halves, no compensation/expenditure re his Tinklenberg Group for the rail promotion [NorthStar], yet still identified himself as a "lobbyist" for them. He reports gross Hassan amounts for both halves of 2007 [that's the overlap effort with NRRI, which unlike the NorthStar promotion was yielding him fees to promote Iron Range mine waste use along with promoting the project itself for the Stone's Throw development interests]. For the first half he reports $61,230 bottom line; and bottom line $53,530.75 for the second half. How much double billing he was doing for NRRI as well as the development promoters in touting not only the multimillion dollar interchange but doing it using possibly hazardous material is not publicly known. It is unknown because he did not report it. Since his total take from NRRI was $94,280 that figure as an upper cap amount, only, is publicly known. And that figure was disclosed by NRRI, where the law compels a public disclosure response to a citizen request. There has been no disclosure from candidate Tinklenberg nor his Tinklenberg Group, a private entity which has no public data disclosure duty but must register itself and report financial amounts, when lobbying. While I might have requested copies of every Tinklenberg Group invoice to NRRI, that being public data, I did not make the request. Let the GOP pursue that level of detail if they care to. Or the Campaign Finance Board. As a part of any kind of valid investigation, they would look at the invoices. MY understanding is they only respond to complaints, and do not investigate things on their own initiative. A total figure for fees paid of $94,280 proves the lobbying effort on behalf of NRRI was not insubstantial nor pro bono. The sidebar has a contact email address, and I will email a copy of the one NRRI TSR_2008_01 report, (the one not yet published by NRRI on its website), to anyone requesting a copy. It has 2007 Tinklenberg reports to NRRI appended.