When Seconds Count: MHSA Regulation 16.7 and the “Missing Person Locator” Gap in South African Mining

In the aftermath of a serious incident underground, time becomes the single most important commodity. Whether the trigger is a fall of ground, fire, explosion, flooding, or a ventilation event, the first challenge is often the simplest one; “Where are our people?”

That is exactly what Regulation 16.7 of the Mine Health and Safety Regulations (issued under the MHSA) is designed to address. Yet, across the industry, many operations are still playing catch-up and are treating missing-person location as a “nice-to-have” rather than a core layer of emergency preparedness.

‍

Regulation 16.7 Requirements

Regulation 16.7 introduces a specific, stand-alone duty. A missing person locator system.

In plain terms, the regulations require employers to ensure that:

• No person goes underground without an intrinsically safe device capable of determining the last known location of a person if they go missing in underground workings.
• Where a mine’s section 11 risk assessment shows a significant risk of persons going missing (including engulfment from slope failure), persons must be provided with a locating device to determine last known location.
• Where unplanned/uncontrolled flow (water, rock, mud, slimes) poses a significant risk, persons must likewise be provided with a locating device.

Regulation 16.7 goes further than “buy devices and tick the box”. It requires that the locator solution is operationally integrated and supportable:

• The device must be part of the mine’s emergency preparedness and response strategy.
• Battery life must be informed by the mine’s risk assessment so the person can be located during/after a shift.
• The system must include a data logging facility (so location information is recorded and retrievable).
• Personnel must be trained and the device must be worn on the body.
• The mine must have an effective procedure covering inspection, repair and maintenance by suitably trained/qualified persons.

These requirements were published as part of the substituted Chapter 16 regulations and are in force from the date of publication (28 March 2025).

‍

Importance of the “last known location” capability

Most mines already have multiple safety layers - lamp room controls, tag boards, shift rosters, cap-lamp systems, radio procedures, refuge bay protocols, mine rescue arrangements and emergency drills. Those remain essential.

But in a fast-moving underground incident, those measures can still leave a dangerous gap:

• Evacuation becomes disorganised when you cannot confirm who is still underground, and where.
• Rescue teams lose time searching broad areas instead of narrowing to a last known position.
• Secondary risks increase (for example, sending teams into unstable areas without a credible fix on the missing person’s location).

Regulation 16.7 is aimed at shrinking that gap - moving from “paper certainty” to location certainty.

‍

Enforcement risk is not only a safety issue

From a legal-risk perspective, Regulation 16.7 sits inside Chapter 16 (rescue, first aid, emergency preparedness and response). That means non-compliance is likely to show up during inspections focused on emergency readiness - particularly after incidents, complaints or adverse trends.

Two practical consequences matter for Mine leadership:

1. Operational interruption: Inspectors have the power to issue instructions where conditions may endanger health and safety, including stoppage-type instructions under the MHSA framework. Section 54 is well-known in this context.
2. Accountability: The MHSA places defined responsibilities on employers and senior appointees, including the CEO-focused duty framework in section 2A (often mirrored in how compliance responsibilities are structured and audited at operational level).

Even where a mine is “in progress” on implementation, the compliance question is usually unforgiving. What is in place right now, and can you prove it works?

‍

Practical Implications for chrome and other underground operations

For chrome mining operations (including those operating in Gauteng and neighbouring provinces), the typical risk profile includes: Underground workings, geotechnical instability, constrained travelways, winch/transport interfaces and (in some contexts) water ingress or mud risks.

Against that backdrop, Regulation 16.7 should be approached as a core control that supports:

• Emergency response effectiveness (faster location → faster decisions).
• Reduced rescue exposure (less time searching; more targeted actions).
• Inspection readiness (clear procedures, device registers, training evidence, maintenance proof).

‍

A practical compliance roadmap

If a mine has not yet implemented a compliant missing person locator system, the fastest route is usually a staged, evidence-driven approach:

1) Confirm scope via risk assessment. Start with section 11 risk assessment outputs. Underground is compulsory; surface/tailings depend on risk triggers. Ensure the assessment explicitly addresses “missing person” scenarios (falls of ground, slope failure/engulfment, inrush, mud rush, fire/smoke, blasting-related events, etc.).

2) Choose technology that matches mining realities. The regulations specify outcomes (intrinsically safe device; last known location; data logging; battery life; training; maintenance).

Your procurement should be driven by workings geometry, rock mass, connectivity constraints, and emergency scenarios - not by what is cheapest or easiest to deploy.

3) Integrate into emergency preparedness and response. Regulation 16.7 requires integration into the emergency strategy (not a parallel system owned by one department).  This means aligning ERP triggers, call-out trees, refuge bay procedures, mine rescue coordination, control room responsibilities and shift-change rules.

4) Build the “proof pack” now (before an incident) A mine should be able to produce, on demand:

• Device issuing rules (including contractors/visitors where applicable),
• Evidence devices are intrinsically safe and worn on-body,
• Training records and competency sign-offs,
• Maintenance/inspection logs, and
• Data logging access and retention rules.

5) Test in drills the way incidents actually happen. Run drills that test the real question: How quickly can we identify who is missing and retrieve last known location data in a realistic failure scenario? Use drill outcomes to refine the procedure, battery approach and training.

‍

Common implementation traps to avoid

• Buying devices without building the system: Regulation 16.7 is a “system duty” (procedure + training + maintenance + logging + integration), not just hardware.
• Ignoring battery-life realities. If battery life doesn’t match shift patterns and emergency duration, the device may fail at the worst moment.
• Weak contractor coverage. Emergencies don’t distinguish between employees and contractor teams working in the same sections.
• No data governance. If you can’t quickly retrieve logs, interpret them, and show integrity, your “last known location” capability is theoretical.

‍

Conclusion

Regulation 16.7 is best understood as a life-saving control that also reduces legal and operational exposure. Mines do not get to choose when the next serious incident will occur - but they can choose whether, in that moment, they are searching blind or responding with precision.