EPA Director Responds to Criticisms in Column by GHK Lall

Based on reporting by Guyana Times:

In a letter published in Kaieteur News on October 20, 2026, Kemraj Parsram, the Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), addressed a column titled "EPA Director, Parsram," written by GHK Lall on October 18, 2026. Parsram stated that the statements challenged by Mr. Lall represent the EPA's position, and he maintained his support for them. He clarified that Mr. Lall's description of him as a "good friend" was not a sentiment he shared. Furthermore, Parsram noted that Mr. Lall had also characterized him as a "jester" and a "comedian" while speculating about his "war pay."

Parsram asserted that the EPA's statement indicating the matter must await the Environmental Assessment Board’s determination serves to explain the regulatory process. He emphasized that this statement does not predict the Board's decision nor does it guarantee approval for the developer. He maintained that his duty as Executive Director is to communicate this position clearly without prejudging the appeals.

According to the Environmental Protection Act, individuals who may be affected have a mechanism to challenge the EPA's determination that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not necessary. The EAB possesses the authority to either confirm or overturn that decision. Parsram stated that respecting this process requires allowing the Board to consider appeals without assuming its final outcome.

He pointed out a distinction between determining if an EIA is required and deciding if a project should receive an environmental permit. An EIA exemption does not automatically grant permission to begin proposed activities. Even if an exemption is upheld, the EPA must still decide whether to approve or reject the application and, if approved, what conditions are needed to safeguard human health and the environment.

Regarding Mr. Lall's inquiry about instances where the EAB has disagreed with the EPA, Parsram noted that the Board's record is a valid subject for review. However, he stated that the proper evaluation of any determination lies in its reasoning, the evidence considered, and its consistency with the law.

Parsram rejected the suggestion that political pressure or fear has already determined the outcome, noting that Mr. Lall's column provided no evidence of instructions to the Board, interference in the appeals, or a predetermined decision. He asserted that references to unrelated controversies do not substantiate those claims, and an assertion does not become evidence simply through confident delivery or rhetorical repetition.

He stated that he would not presume to speak for EAB members or announce their conclusions beforehand, and he rejected the notion that explaining their statutory role makes him a comedian or renders the professionals involved mere rubber stamps. He concluded that the work of these professionals should be examined based on its merits, and any claim of improper conduct must be supported by evidence.

Parsram affirmed that public concerns regarding uranium warrant substantive answers, and questions about proposed activities, potential exposure pathways, effects on water and communities, and the adequacy of safeguards are legitimate. He reiterated that the public is entitled to expect the EPA to defend its decisions with evidence and to have an appeals process whose outcome has not been decided in advance by either the regulator or its critics. The regulatory statements challenged in Mr. Lall’s column are those of the Environmental Protection Agency, and as Executive Director, Parsram stands by them while remaining accountable for explaining the Agency's decisions and respecting the statutory review process.