Report of Investigation: Katherine A. Lemos, Former Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


Report of Investigation:
Katherine A. Lemos,
Former Chairperson and
Chief Executive Officer,
U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation
Board

June 28, 2023 j Report No. 23-N-0020

-------
ron orriciAL use only

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

{CATHERINE A. LEMOS
FORMER CHAIRPERSON AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Introduction and Summary

On May 11, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General,
Administrative Investigations Directorate initiated an investigation into potentially improper
expenditures made by Dr. Katherine A. Lemos. At the time. Dr. Lemos was the chairperson of
the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, or CSB. Dr. Lemos resigned from her
position as CSB chairperson and board member on July 22, 2022. The purpose of the
investigation was to determine whether Dr. Lemos (1) improperly used Board funds for travel
from her residence in San Diego to her official duty station in Washington, D.C.; (2) exceeded
the statutory cap on expenses for her office refurbishment; and (3) hired two senior aides on a
noncompetitive basis.

The OIG later expanded the scope of the investigation to include additional expenses related to
Dr. Lemos's travel. These expenses included a trip to Washington, D.C., to attend a White House
holiday reception during a continuing resolution, or CR; travel to Norfolk, Virginia, to
participate in an embarkation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier; and trips to Atlanta and Houston
for which expenses were calculated based on deparhires from a location other than Dr. Lemos's
official duty station. The OIG also investigated whether Dr. Lemos improperly used Board funds
for media training in 2020 and 2021.

As explained in this report, the evidence uncovered during our investigation has substantiated the
following:

• Dr. Lemos's use of Board funds to travel from her residence in San Diego to her
official duty station in Washington, D.C., constituted a violation of the Federal Travel
Regulation, or FTR.

• Dr. Lemos's use of Board funds for the trip to Norfolk violated the FTR because the
embarkation on the Navy aircraft carrier was not official CSB business.

• The expenses for Dr. Lemos's travel to Atlanta and Houston were improperly
calculated based on departures from her residence in San Diego rather than her
official duty station in Washington, D.C., as required by the FTR.

• Dr. Lemos exceeded the statutory cap on expenses to furnish and redecorate her
office without prior notification to Congress. Her furniture purchases were also in
violation of the Federal Management Regulation.

This report is the property of the CPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Directorate. It and its contents
may not be reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is TOR 0[TICIAL USC ONLY. I~urthcr disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 1

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

• Dr. Lemos's use of Board funds for her own media training without prior approval
from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, was in violation of the
Government Employees Training Act, or GETA, and OPM regulations.

Our investigation did not substantiate any allegation of wrongdoing related to the noncompetitive
hiring of two senior aides, or the allegation that Dr. Lemos's travel during the CR violated
restrictions associated with the CR that was in place at the time. As noted in this report, Dr.
Lemos's testimony to the OIG included several statements regarding her travel and office
purchases that were directly contradicted by other evidence.

On June 5, 2023, we provided Dr. Lemos, through her counsel, with a tentative conclusions letter
containing our preliminary report of investigation and gave her an opportunity to review and
comment before we finalized our report. We requested Dr. Lemos's response by June 15, 2023.1
In her response provided through her counsel, Dr. Lemos disagreed with our conclusions. Dr.
Lemos asserted that she relied on the advice of CSB staff regarding the expense reimbursements
at issue. She stated that CSB staff had difficulty obtaining clear guidance from the Office of
Presidential Personnel and the OPM on her travel expenses. Dr. Lemos also asserted that the
OIG did not acknowledge that she was invited to the embarkation in Norfolk in her CSB capacity
and that other CSB employees participated in her media training. Finally, Dr. Lemos stated that
the OIG did not give credit to testimony that her furniture purchases were made after consulting
with senior staff and her "priority to ensure a safe workplace during the Covid-19 environment
for current and incoming board members and staff."

After carefully considering Dr. Lemos's response, we amended some sections of the report but
did not alter our original conclusions.2

This report summarizes the evidence uncovered during the OIG's investigation.

Methodology

During our investigation, we conducted 18 interviews of current and former CSB employees,
including Dr. Lemos, as well as several individuals not affiliated with the CSB.

We also reviewed the email communications of relevant CSB personnel, as well as personnel
records, purchasing files, and Dr. Lemos's travel documents. In addition, we collected and
reviewed relevant documents from outside parties, including the furniture dealer involved in the
furniture purchases. We also conducted site visits to the CSB's Washington, D.C., headquarters.

1 On June 12, 2023, Dr. Lemos's counsel requested a two-week extension to respond, but did not provide a
justification for why additional time was needed. The OIG denied her request.

2 While we included what we believe is a reasonable synopsis of Dr. Lemos's responses, we provided a copy of the
full response with this report.

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents
may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Chapter 1: Dr. Lemos's Use of Board Funds for Travel Between Her
Residence and Official Duty Station

Dr. Lemos was not entitled to use government funds to pay for her travel between her residence
in San Diego and her official duty station in Washington, D.C. From the start of her term on
April 23, 2020, through the effective date of her change in duty station, which was March 27,
2022, Dr. Lemos traveled to Washington 18 times, at a total cost to the Board of $49,668.46, in
violation of the FTR. After changing her duty station to San Diego, Dr. Lemos traveled to
Washington two more times, for an additional expense of $5,163.54. Because federal law and
regulations do not contain clear guidance related to changing the duty stations of federal agency
heads, we were not able to conclude definitively that the expenses for the two trips were
reimbursable under the FTR.

A. Legal Standards

Appropriated funds are available only for the purpose or purposes for which Congress has
provided. 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a); United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) ("The
established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by
Congress, not that public funds may be expended unless prohibited by Congress.").
"[Appropriated funds are generally not available for the personal expenses of an employee
without specific statutory authority." In re U.S. Int '/ Trade Comm 'n - Use of Appropriated
Funds to Subsidize Employee Parking Permits, B-322337, at 4 (Aug. 3, 2012).

Under federal law, a federal employee is entitled to payment of travel expenses incurred "when
traveling on official business away from the employee's designated post of duty." 5 U.S.C.
§ 5702(a)(1). An agency may reimburse an employee for such expenses only if the employee is
performing official travel,3 which is defined in the FTR as: "[t]ravel under an official
travel authorization from an employee's official station or other authorized point of departure to
a temporary duty location and return from a temporary duty location, between two temporary
duty locations, or relocation at the direction of a Federal agency." 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1.

There is no provision in the FTR that allows employees to travel between their residence and
permanent duty station at the government's expense. As the comptroller general has stated, any
travel to an official duty station is at the employee's expense: "It is well-established that an
employee's commute between home and work is a personal expense, and personal expenses are
not payable from appropriated funds, absent specific statutory authority." Matter of: U.S. Capitol
Police - Employee Shuttle, B-305864, at 2 (Jan. 5, 2006). "An employee chooses where to live
and, in doing so, accepts the distance between the employee's home and official duty station." In
re Dep't of Hons. And Urban Dev., Off. Of Inspector Gen. - Reasonable Accommodation, B-
318229, at 4 (Dec. 22, 2009); see also Corrigan v. United States, 694 F. App'x. 798, 802 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (holding that federal employee not entitled to reimbursement of expenses for travel

3 5 U.S.C. §§ 5702, 5707; 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

between residence and official duty station); see also Unavailability of Appropriated Funds to
Subsidize Employees' Long-Distance Home-to-Work Travel, B-330935, at 6 (May 20, 2019)
(stating that appropriated funds may not be used for long-distance home-to-work travel costs,
which is a personal expense of the employee), reconsidered on other grounds, B-330935.2
(determining that, in 5 U.S.C. § 7905, Congress authorized agencies to use appropriated funds to
subsidize certain transit passes for employees).

The definition of official travel includes "relocation at the direction of a Federal agency." 41
C.F.R. § 300-3.1. The FTR and CSB's Board Order 6 ("Travel and Transportation Expenses of
New Appointees") permit the payment of specific relocation expenses, which are limited to
transportation of the employee and immediate family members to the new permanent duty
station, a per diem for the employee, and the transportation and storage of household goods. 41
C.F.R. § 302-3.2; CSB Board Order 6, § 4(h). Any expenses that are not listed in 41 C.F.R.
§ 302-3.2 are not reimbursable by federal agencies as relocation expenses. See 41 C.F.R. § 302-
3.3; CSB Board Order 6, § 4(i).

The employee must complete all aspects of the relocation within one year of the effective date of
the appointment. 41 C.F.R. § 302-2.9. The effective date of the appointment is the date on which
the employee "report[s] for duty" at his or her official duty station. 41 C.F.R. § 302-2.4. There is
no provision in the FTR that permits reimbursable travel to the employee's duty station prior to
the employee's relocation.

As a result of the presidential national emergency proclamation issued March 13, 2020,
concerning the coronavirus pandemic—that is, the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resultant COVID-19
disease—the U.S. General Services Administration, or GSA, issued guidance allowing federal
agencies to waive the relocation time limit established by the FTR for cases where coronavirus
pandemic restrictions "create[d] difficulties for individuals attempting to complete their
relocation within one year." The GSA guidance does not address whether travel to an
employee's permanent duty station is reimbursable prior to the employee's relocation. As of the
date of Dr. Lemos's resignation, the GSA had not issued guidance permitting reimbursement for
such travel during the coronavirus pandemic.

B. Facts

The CSB is an independent federal agency headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Board is
charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The CSB was authorized by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(6), and became operational in January 1998.
Its principal role is to investigate accidents and determine their causes in order to prevent similar
events. The CSB is composed of five board members, including the chairperson, who are
appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Board chairperson serves as the
chief executive officer and is responsible for Board administration. CSB Board Order 28, § 8.

Katherine Lemos was confirmed by the Senate as the CSB chairperson on March 23, 2020, and
began her term on April 23, 2020. Prior to her confirmation, Dr. Lemos served as a Director for

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Northrop Grumman Corporation's Aerospace Sector. And prior to that, Dr. Lemos served in
various roles in the federal government, including at the Federal Aviation Administration and the
National Transportation Safety Board. In her testimony to the OIG, Dr. Lemos confirmed that
she engaged in work-related travel when she worked at the Federal Aviation Administration and
National Transportation Safety Board.

Dr. Lemos was the sole board member at the CSB from May 1, 2020, when the only other
member left the board, until February 3, 2022, when two new board members were sworn in and
began their terms. Dr. Lemos resigned from her positions as chairperson and board member
effective July 22, 2022.

At the start of her term, Dr. Lemos's official duty station was Washington, D.C., but she resided
in San Diego. At that time, the CSB office was closed because of the coronavirus pandemic, and
the staff was working remotely. Dr. Lemos did not relocate to Washington, D.C.; instead, she
worked from her San Diego residence. According to Dr. Lemos, she traveled to Washington
whenever she felt a need to do so. Between April 26, 2020, and her departure from the Board on
July 22, 2022, Dr. Lemos traveled to Washington, D.C., twenty times, for a total expenditure of
$54,832.00, as summarized in Table 1 below.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
ron orriciAL use only

Table 1: Dr. Lemos's Round-Trip Travel Expenses from San Diego to Washington,
D.C. (April 26, 2020-July 22, 2022)

No.

Trip Dates

Expenses

1

April 26-May 1, 2020

$2,977.61

—

June 1-5, 2020

$60.61*

2

June 22-26, 2020

$3,711.96t

3

July 12-17, 2020

$2,475.41

4

July 26-August 1, 2020

$2,663.88

5

August 30-September 4, 2020

$2,574.90

6

October 5-9, 2020

$2,516.59

7

October 19-23, 2020

$2,444.93

8

October 28-November 6, 2020

$3,938,961

9

November 30-December 4, 2020

$2,000

10

January 10-15, 2021

$2,384.04

11

June 13-17, 2021

$2,956.32

12

August 8-13, 2021

$2,889.20§

13

September 26-30, 2021

$2,757.38

14

October 31-November 6, 2021

$2,730.43

15

November 29-December 3, 2021

$2,317.68

16

December 13-21, 2021

$3,589.29

17

January 23-28, 2022

$2,499.50

18

February 14-18, 2022

$2,179.77

19

May 30-June 4, 2022

$2,596.64

20

July 11-16, 2022

$2,566.90



Total

$54,832.00

* This trip was booked and then canceled. Expense amount represents nonrefundable fees.

^ This figure includes expenses for travel from Washington. D.C.. to Denver, Colorado, 011 Friday, June 26. 2020.
The Washington-to-Denver leg of the trip originated from Dr. Lemos's official duty station of Washington, D.C.,
and the evidence uncovered by the OIG suggests that it was for the purpose of official CSB business. As such, the
expenses for this specific leg of the trip do not constitute a violation of the FTR. The OIG was not able to determine
what portion of the lump-sum airfare was attributable to the Washington-to-Denver leg of Dr. Lemos's flight,
i This figure excludes expenses for two day trips departing from Washington. D.C.. on November 2 and 3, 2020,
The evidence suggests that the trips were for official CSB business. Because the trips originated from Washington,
D.C., they do not constitute a violation of the FTR and expenses for the two trips have been deducted from the
figure above.

^ This figure includes expenses for a trip from Washington. D.C., to Norfolk, Virginia (discussed below at Chapter
2(A)).

This report is the property of the CPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Directorate. It and its contents
may not be reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is TOR OmCIAL USC ONLY. I~urthcr disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

6

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Dr. Lemos told the OIG that she believed her travel to Washington was permitted based on a
conversation with a CSB staff member prior to joining the Board. According to Dr. Lemos's
testimony, in December 2019 the told her that it was

customary for the Board to cover an incoming chairperson's travel until the person was settled in
Washington. The only limit to such travel was that it should be reasonable.

did not recall such a conversation, and Dr. Lemos was not able to point to any
provision of the FTRthat supported the^^^^^^^^J alleged statement. Dr. Lemos conceded
in her interview with the OIG that the individual traveler is responsible for complying with the
FTR.

None of the CSB staff members we interviewed testified that they had informed Dr. Lemos that
her travel was improper under the FTR, and we found no written evidence that anyone had ever
done so. At various times in 2020 and early 2021, CSB staff members raised concerns with each
other about Dr. Lemos's travel, but their assumption was that the travel was permissible until Dr.
Lemos relocated. For example, in October and November 2020, CSB staff members
communicated with the Bureau of the Fiscal Service travel desk regarding Dr. Lemos's
relocation and the date when the one-year period for her relocation benefits would begin and end.
As a result of these communications, CSB staff confirmed that the one-year period started
running on April 23, 2020, and that Dr. Lemos would need to complete her relocation by April
23, 2021. The staff assumed that, prior to the relocation, Dr. Lemos could use Board funds to
travel to her duty station. One staff member informed Dr. Lemos in October 2020 and again in
January 2021 that her "report date" was April 23, 2021, and that any travel to Washington, D.C.,
after that date could not be reimbursed by the CSB. The OIG did not uncover any evidence that
CSB staff informed Dr. Lemos that her travel to Washington, D.C., was not an allowable
expense prior to her relocation. As one staff member told the OIG, "the only thing I can say is
we just didn't ask the right questions." According to Dr. Lemos's testimony to the OIG, she
relied on advice from her staff and never questioned the advice or sought confirmation that it was
correct.

In May 2021, the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER,
issued a press release alleging that Dr. Lemos's trips to Washington, D.C., were in violation of
federal rules governing employee travel. Dr. Lemos testified to the OIG that she did not "believe
their statement." According to Dr. Lemos, her staff told her that it was "half-truths ... as usual."
Dr. Lemos's travel documents show that, after the PEER press release, she continued to travel at
almost the same rate as she had in 2020.

In October 2021, during the OIG's investigation, the CSB staff sought clarification from the
Bureau of the Fiscal Service about whether the Board could continue to pay for Dr. Lemos's
travel, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service forwarded the CSB's questions to the GSA team
responsible for interpreting the FTR. The GSA's email responses stated repeatedly that the FTR
does not authorize any travel allowance at the employee's official duty station.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 /

-------
ron orriciAL use only

Table 2: GSA Responses to Questions Regarding Dr. Lemos's Travel

Question

GSA Response

"The question they are asking is which part of
the FTR allows them to pay travel from the
residence in CA [California] to the PDS
[Permanent Duty Station] in DC."

'There is no FTR authority to allow TDY
[Temporary Duty] travel allowances at the PDS."*

"Since the traveler has not yet been told to
officially report to DC, any travel during this
time from CA to DC can be reimbursed by the
agency?"

"Again, it appears the agency has made the DC
area as the PDS, and the FTR only authorizes
TDY allowances when the employee is away
from the PDS and not at the PDS."f

"The traveler is full-time teleworking in CA due
to COVID, but as we know if the PDS on the
SF-50 is DC it does not change for COVID.
The telework agreement will not be 100%
(PDS=DC) and the traveler is required to come
into the office during the pay period."

"Not sure about 'HR telework policy and allowing
an employee to work away from the PDS and not
change because of COVID. However, again, the
FTR doe[s] not authorize TDY allowances at the
PDS."f

+ Emphasis added.

At the end of the GSA's email response, in a section with the heading "Bottom Line" in bold, it
provided another succinct statement of the governing law and regulations:

Bottom Line:

If the agency has established the PDS, and the individual resides in a
different location that is not the PDS, the agency can not pay TDY expenses
to travel to the PDS. This applies to "ALL" new appointees, current
employees, and political Secretary/appointees.

The GSA email was provided to CSB staff members in October 2021, and it was forwarded to
Dr. Lemos on December 8, 2021.

A representative from the GSA testified that he reiterated the same points to the CSB's executive
counsel in a telephone conference on December 17, 2021. In an interview with the OIG, the GSA
representative said that he explained to the executive counsel, "if you're away from your PDS
[permanent duty station] and you're traveling back to your PDS, there is no travel entitlement."

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The GSA representative testified that there was no contradiction between the advice he provided
on the call and the advice provided by GSA in the emails.4

After the call, the executive counsel advised Dr. Lemos, contrary to the statements in the GSA
email, that the GSA "understands our position and could not point to any guidance to suggest
[that the] current position of the agency is improper." Between December 8, 2021, and March 1,
2022, Dr. Lemos traveled to Washington three more times: on December 13, 2021; January 23,
2022; and February 14, 2022.

On March 27, 2022, Dr. Lemos changed her official duty station from Washington, D.C., to San
Diego. According to a letter from her personal legal counsel dated April 19, Dr. Lemos made this
change based on the OIG's investigation: "Dr. Lemos wanted to eliminate any further
uncertainty regarding her travel expenses." Other documents uncovered by the OIG suggest that
this change was made without approval from the Office of Presidential Personnel, which is the
normal practice for changing the duty station of other types of political appointees, such as
Schedule C appointees.3 On March 8 and 14, the sought guidance

from the Board's liaison in the Office of Presidential Personnel, but there is no evidence in the
record that the Office of Presidential Personnel responded or provided any guidance.

In a memorandum to the dated March 21, 2022, Dr. Lemos

requested the change in her duty station and asked that the change be effective March 27. She
also stated that the document "serves as written documentation of my decision and request, per
the direction of Human Resources." Dr. Lemos did not provide any reason for the request or
explain how the change would be in the best interests of the Board, as would be required for
changing the duty station of other CSB personnel. CSB Board Order 42, § 9(b)(2).

On March 22, 2022, the informed Dr. Lemos that she was

"strongly against the decision to move this action forward without written approval from the
White House." The request was submitted to the Department of the Interior's Interior Business
Center and the change was made effective as of March 27, in accordance with Dr. Lemos's

4 The executive counsel had a different view of what took place on the call with the GSA. In his interview with the
OIG, the executive counsel testified that the rules cited in the GSA's email were based on a "different set of facts"
because Dr. Lemos had not yet reported to her official duty station. He went on to say, "if the employee shows up to
work on a permanent duty station, [he or she] would no longer be entitled to travel to the permanent duty station
from a remote location. That's not in dispute. That's not in dispute at all." He said that, in Dr. Lemos's case, "She
did not report in to her permanent duty station." When asked to provide the legal authority supporting his statement,
the executive counsel was not able to provide any; he stated that his understanding was based on his conversation
with the GSA representatives. The executive counsel also testified that the advice given by the GSA in the telephone
conference contradicted the advice provided by GSA in the emails. The executive counsel said that he "expressly
asked [them] about it. And they agreed. They think [it's] a gray area." Taking into account all the evidence and
testimony, the OIG finds the GSA representative's account of the call to be credible.

5 An OPM representative advised the OIG that although there was no statutory or regulatory requirement for the
request to be approved by the Office of Presidential Personnel, OPM's practice has been to require OPM and the
Office of Presidential Personnel approval for a change in duty station of Schedule C appointees.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

request. Dr. Lemos subsequently traveled to Washington on May 30 and July 11, at a total cost to
the Board of $5,163.54.

The OIG asked the CSB and Dr. Lemos to produce all documentation related to Dr. Lemos's
request to change her duty station. In response, the CSB produced the March 21, 2022
memorandum, which did not provide any reason for the request or explanation of the anticipated
benefits for the Board. The CSB also produced an internal email sent by the CSB's executive

to the CSB's^^^^^^^^^^^^^J and on March In

the email, the executive counsel directed the recipients to "move forward with [the] updating of
the Chairman's designated PDS to reflect her home office in San Diego," and provided a draft
justification narrative for the change. The justification included a reference that the change
would align the chairperson with other board members and mission staff who worked remotely
and provide "a cost savings" as the agency would no longer have to provide relocation benefits
to Dr. Lemos. The only other reasons for the request that we have been able to uncover were
stated in the April 19 letter to the OIG from Dr. Lemos's personal legal counsel, which cited "the
OIG investigation," the "lack of clear guidance from GSA," and a desire to "eliminate any
further uncertainty regarding her travel expenses." None of these justifications describe how the
change would be in the best interests of the Board.

C. Analysis

1. Dr. Lemos's Use of Board Funds to Travel to her Official Duty Station Violated the
FTR.

Dr. Lemos was not entitled to use government funds to pay for her travel between her residence
in San Diego and her official duty station in Washington, D.C. There is no basis for such
expenditures in the U.S. Code, the FTR, the CSB's Board Orders, or any other statutory or
regulatory authority that the OIG has been able to identify.

Under federal law, Dr. Lemos was only entitled to the payment of travel expenses for "official
business" that was "away from [her] designated post of duty." 5 U.S.C. § 5702. Dr. Lemos was
not in San Diego for official agency business, and her stays in Washington, D.C., were not
"away from [her] designated post of duty," as the law specifies. Washington, D.C., was her
official duty post. Under the FTR, a government employee is entitled to travel expenses only
when on "official travel," 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.1, which is defined as: travel from an employee's
official station or other authorized point of departure to a temporary duty location and return
from a temporary duty location, travel between two temporary duty locations, or relocation at the
direction of a Federal agency, 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1. Because Washington, D.C., was Dr. Lemos's
permanent duty location—not her temporary duty location—she was not entitled to the payment
of travel expenses for her stays there or for her travel between there and her residence in San
Diego.

Dr. Lemos's decision to reside in San Diego, more than 2,000 miles from her duty station, was
her personal choice, and her travel between San Diego and Washington, D.C., was a personal

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

expense. See B-330935, at 6-7. There was no statutory authority from Congress for Dr. Lemos to
use appropriated funds for her travel to and from her official duty station. Accordingly, Dr.
Lemos's use of $49,668.46 in Board funds for the 18 trips she took from San Diego to
Washington, D.C., between April 2020 and March 2022 was in violation of the FTR.

2. The OIG Could Not Determine Whether Expenses for Dr. Lemos's Two Trips to

Washington. D C.. Following Her Duty Station Change Were Allowable Under the FTR.

After changing her duty station, Dr. Lemos traveled to Washington two more times. We were not
able to conclude whether her use of Board funds for those trips was permissible under the FTR,
however, because we were not able to determine definitively whether Dr. Lemos had a proper
legal basis for changing her duty station.

The OIG was not able to identify any legal authority permitting a presidentially appointed,
Senate-confirmed agency head to request a voluntary change in duty station. There is no OPM
regulation setting forth requirements for such requests. OPM has advised the OIG that its general
practice has been to require OPM and the Office of Presidential Personnel approval for such
requests by political appointees, but the OIG could not locate any formal written guidance from
OPM on this practice. The CSB's Board Order 42, "Internal Transfer, Reassignment, and
Change in Duty Station," sets forth procedures that must be followed in changing the duty station
of CSB employees; it does not include procedures for changing the duty station of the
chairperson. CSB Board Order 42 § 9. In the absence of such procedures, it is unclear whether a
change in the chairperson's duty station would be permitted. Even though Board Order 42 does
not explicitly apply to the chairperson, we find it instructive to analyze Dr. Lemos's duty station
change in light of Board Order 42's requirements.

Under Board Order 42, the duty station of CSB employees is Washington, D.C., and any changes
in an employee's duty station must be based on the best interests of the Board. Board Order 42,
§ 9(a), (b)(2). In making a request for a change in duty station, an employee must set forth in
writing "the reasons for the request, and the anticipated benefits to be derived by the CSB if the
change were approved." Id. at § 9(b)(2). The employee's supervisor, the office director, and the
Human Resources Department must provide their views on the request to the chairperson,
including whether approval of the request would be in the best interests of the CSB. Id. The
chairperson must consider their views and the views of the board. Id. Although the chairperson
has sole discretion to grant or deny such requests, any decision is to be based on the "best
interests of the CSB." Id.

None of the documents that Dr. Lemos and her personal legal counsel provided to the OIG
contained an analysis of whether the duty station change would be in the best interests of the
Board. The memorandum that Dr. Lemos submitted on March 21, 2022, did not provide her
reasons for the requested change in duty station or an explanation of how it would benefit the
Board. The April 19 letter from Dr. Lemos's personal legal counsel cited "the OIG
investigation," the "lack of clear guidance from GSA," and a desire to "eliminate any further

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents

may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

uncertainty regarding her travel expenses" as the reasoning for the change, none of which
describes any anticipated benefits to the Board.

The draft narrative justification sent by the executive counsel to the CSB'sl

on March 3, 2022, stated that the change would align the chairperson with mission staff
and other board members who were working remotely and allow for "a cost savings" by
eliminating relocation benefits for the chairperson. It is unclear whether this draft narrative
factored into Dr. Lemos's decision to change her duty station as she was not copied on the
executive counsel's email, and none of the justifications cited in the executive counsel's draft
were referenced in Dr. Lemos's March 21 memorandum request or in her legal counsel's April
19, 2022 letter to the OIG. The CSB also did not produce any supporting documentation showing
a cost savings calculation relating to the change in duty station.

When an employee requests a duty station change, Board Order 42 requires the chairperson to
consider the views of the employee's supervisor, the office director, and the Human Resources
Department, as well as the views of the board. Dr. Lemos did not have a supervisor, and the
CSB's^^^^^^^^^^^^lindicated her approval by signing Dr. Lemos's March 21 request.
Theexpressed a contrary view, however, objecting to the request in
the absence of written approval from the White House. There was no evidence that the CSB
board members were consulted.

Given that Dr. Lemos did not provide the reasons for the request or explain how the change
would be in the best interests of the Board, her request would not have satisfied the requirements
in CSB Board Order 42. The evidence also indicates that the CSB did not obtain OPM or Office
of Presidential Personnel approval before processing the request. As explained above, however,
Board Order 42 does not explicitly apply to the chairperson and in the absence of formal written
guidance or regulations, it is unclear whether the OPM general practice was applicable. As such,
the OIG could not conclusively determine whether Dr. Lemos's change of duty station was
proper or whether her use of $5,163.54 in Board funds for trips to Washington in May and
July 2022 was permissible under the FTR.

3. The Letter from Dr. Lemos's Legal Counsel Does Not Provide a Legal Basis for Her

Travel.

In a letter to the OIG from her personal legal counsel dated February 10, 2022, Dr. Lemos
presented various arguments for why she believed the travel to Washington, D.C., was a
permissible Board expense, but none of the arguments show that Dr. Lemos had a basis in the
controlling statutes or regulations to use government funds for her travel. Dr. Lemos's arguments
fell into three general categories: (1) The FTR did not track the unique set of circumstances
presented by the coronavirus pandemic; (2) CSB personnel did not suggest that there was a
problem with her travel and instead told her that the travel was allowable until she was able to
relocate to Washington, D.C.; and (3) the advice the CSB received from the GSA was confusing

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 12

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

but seemed to say that Dr. Lemos's travel was permissible. This section analyzes each of these
arguments.

(1) The FTR did not track the unique set of circumstances presented by the
coronavirus pandemic.

As explained above, the FTR sets forth three categories of travel that constitute "official travel,"
and they are the only types of travel that are reimbursable to an employee under federal law.
Travel back and forth to an official duty station is not included in the definition of "official
travel." 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1. There is no provision of federal law or regulation that created a
general suspension or loosening of 5 U.S.C. § 5702 or the FTR during the coronavirus pandemic.
The FTR does not include provisions that specifically address travel during pandemics, which
means that its provisions remain unchanged during a pandemic.

(2) CSB personnel did not suggest that there was a problem with Dr. Lemos's
travel and instead told her that the travel was allowable until she was able to
relocate.

Key CSB staff members were operating under the mistaken belief that an incoming chairperson
was entitled to travel to Washington, D.C., at the government's expense prior to the
chairperson's relocation. See supra p. 7. None of the staff members interviewed by the OIG
testified to bringing concerns about the travel to Dr. Lemos's attention.

According to Dr. Lemos's testimony to the OIG, she relied on advice from her staff and never
questioned the advice or sought confirmation that it was correct, even after the PEER press
release of May 11, 2021, alleged that she was in violation of the federal travel rules. Regardless
of what advice an employee receives, an agency may not pay an employee's travel expenses in
violation of the relevant statutes and regulations—even if the advice was erroneous and the
employee relies on it to his or her detriment. See In re Joseph E. Copple, GSBCA No. 16849-
RELO (June 12, 2006). As Dr. Lemos conceded in an interview with the OIG, the individual
traveler is responsible for complying with the FTR.

Dr. Lemos appeared to be operating under a mistaken understanding of the FTR, even through
February 10, 2022, the date of her letter to the OIG. In that letter, she referred to a "reimbursable
travel period" during which she was allegedly authorized to use government funds for travel to
Washington, D.C., until her relocation was complete. She provided no support in the laws or
regulations for this "reimbursable travel period," however. There simply is no "reimbursable
travel period" in federal law or regulations or in the CSB's own written policies.

(3) The advice receivedfrom GSA regarding the travel was confusing and hard
to follow, but Dr. Lemos understood the advice to mean that her travel was
permissible.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

In October 2021, the CSB sought clarification about whether the Board could continue to pay for
Dr. Lemos's travel, but according to the letter from Dr. Lemos's counsel, it never received "a
clear answer" to the question. The letter stated that there was "confusion among individuals at
the GSA, Department of Treasury, and CSB about what Dr. Lemos' travel and relocation
benefits were."

Despite the letter's assertion about confusion, the GSA's advice was clear and definitive: the
FTR does not authorize any travel allowance at the employee's official duty station. This rule
was repeated several times in the GSA email:

• "There is no FTR authority to allow TDY travel allowances at the PDS."

• "Again, it appears the agency has made the DC area as the PDS, and the FTR only
authorizes TDY allowances when the employee is away from the PDS and not at the
PDS."

• "However, again, the FTR doe[s] not authorize TDY allowances at the PDS."

• "Bottom Line: If the agency has established the PDS, and the individual resides in a
different location that is not the PDS, the agency can not pay TDY expenses to travel to
the PDS. This applies to 'ALL' new appointees, current employees, and political
Secretary/appointees."

In the face of such definitive advice from the GSA, Dr. Lemos's assertions about confusion are
not a credible reason for her own misunderstanding of the rules.6

D. Conclusion

The OIG substantiated the allegations regarding Dr. Lemos's travel from San Diego to her
official duty station in Washington, D.C. Dr. Lemos used $49,668.46 in Board funds for her
personal travel to Washington, D.C., in violation of the FTR. The OIG was not able to determine
whether Dr. Lemos's March 2022 change of duty station from Washington, D.C., to San Diego
was proper and whether her use of $5,163.54 in Board funds to pay for her trips to Washington
in May and July 2022 was permissible under the FTR. The letter from Dr. Lemos's personal
legal counsel provided no basis in the FTR, the federal statutes, or the CSB's own board orders
for using CSB funds for her personal travel.

6 In her February 10 letter, Dr. Lemos also stated that "GSA OGC [Office of General Counsel] is apparently
working on guidance on these issues but CSB does not know when that guidance will be complete." According to
the GSA representative interviewed by the OIG for this investigation, the guidance was submitted to and approved
by the GSA OGC prior to Dr. Lemos's letter. The guidance, which is consistent with all the other guidance provided
to the CSB by the GSA, states in relevant part: "Can agencies authorize individuals to travel from the telework
location and also receive per diem at the PDS? No, the employee can only receive per diem when away from the
PDS or other area defined by the agency."

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Chapter 2: Other Travel-Related Issues

During the course of our investigation into Dr. Lemos's travel to her official duty station, the
OIG learned of other potential problems with her travel. The investigation determined that
Dr. Lemos used Board funds to travel from Washington, D.C., to Norfolk, Virginia, to
participate in an embarkation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, an event that was not official CSB
business. She also traveled to Atlanta and Houston, improperly charging the Board for the cost of
the airfare from her residence in San Diego, rather than from Washington, D.C. The OIG did not
substantiate the allegation that Dr. Lemos's trip to Washington for a White House holiday
reception violated restrictions associated with the CR that was in place at the time.

These issues are discussed below.

A. Travel to Norfolk

1. Legal Standards

As explained in Chapter 1, federal employees are entitled to receive travel expenses when
traveling on official business away from their permanent duty station. 5 U.S.C. § 5702(a)(1); 41
C.F.R. § 301-1.3(a). In determining whether requested travel is for official business, it is not
sufficient for the travel to be merely "related" to an employee's official duties. To be
reimbursable, the travel must be "for the purpose of transacting or performing official business."
See In re Charles H. Byrd II - Travel and Leave for Tryouts for the United States Olympic Team.
B-235684 (Sep. 27, 1989); see also U.S. Dep'/. of Agric. v. Fed. Lab. Rels. A nth., 691 F.2d 1242,
1248 (8th Cir. 1982) (employees not entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred in traveling
for purposes of union contract negotiation because not official business of the agency); In re
Reaves, GSBCA No. 16237-TRAV (Jan. 21, 2004) (employee not entitled to reimbursement of
airfare for flight home to attend funeral of family member because purpose of trip was personal
and not official business of the agency); Matter of Harold A. Knapp - Temy. Duty Travel and
Subsistence Expenses. B-226863 (Jan. 26, 1989) (employee not entitled to per diem during
temporary duty in Boston because purpose of trip was for employee's medical procedure, which
was not official business of the agency).

The Byrd case provides an instructive example. In Byrd, a firearms instructor at the FBI
Academy qualified for the U.S. Olympic shooting team tryouts and was approved for travel and
lodging funds for his attendance at the trials. He and his supervisors stated that exposure to the
other shooters and coaches, and to recent developments in technology and training techniques,
would be related to his official duties and would improve his ability to perform those duties. The
comptroller general held that Mr. Byrd was not entitled to travel funds, however: "travel to
compete in Olympic tryouts cannot be characterized as travel for the purpose of transacting or
performing official business within the meaning of the FTR. ... his travel was primarily his
personal choice and for his personal benefit, despite the value which the FBI might gain from his
participation in the tryouts." Id.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2. Facts

On August 8, 2021, Dr. Lemos traveled to Norfolk, Virginia, at the CSB's expense, to take part
in an embarkation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

The event was organized by a 501(c)(3) organization whose "purpose and mission" is "to
provide financial assistance to" a Navy-sponsored command organization that conducts social,
informational, care-taking, and morale-building activities for Navy family members. According
to the organization's website, each time the ship returns from a deployment, the organization
helps provide funding for a welcome home celebration for dependents and family members of
the crew. As part of its outreach to the community, the organization hosts individuals on
overnight visits to the vessel.

On July 27, 2021, Dr. Lemos was invited to join an upcoming embarkation. A few days later, she
provided materials to the CSB Office of General Counsel for an ethics review of the event. Dr.
Lemos's trip request stated that the embarkation was "designed to provide participants with an
understanding of operational safety in high-risk operations, as executed by the Navy. ...
Participants across industries will be introduced to how the Navy manages the broad range of
safety risks in an environment that affords little opportunity for error. ... These topics directly
align with the CSB's priorities, to include worker and environmental safety." The trip would
include "organized discussions and interviews throughout the trip, as well as pre- and post-trip
dinner discussions amongst safety leaders across industries."

A CSB ethics official reviewed the materials for potential ethics issues and responded with a
concern that the trip was not related to the official business of the CSB, as required under the
FTR:

According to the [organization's] website, the organization's purpose is
essentially to pay for a "welcome home pier-side celebration for [the ship's]
15,000 plus dependents and family members" each time the ship returns
home from a major deployment - a laudable purpose, to be sure, but not at
all related to the business of the agency. Nor is the [organization] a training
or process safety organization. Additionally, there is no indication on the
organization's website that there are tours tailored to the process safety or
emergency response community.

Frankly, on its face, this looks like a junket. It's heavy on the "fun" aspect
(taking a plane and landing on the flight deck; getting underway with the
sailors, etc.) and virtually silent on the "educational" aspect. I don't doubt
that a lot can be learned about the [ship's] generators, propulsion systems,
etc., and how those are safely managed at sea. Based on the facts and
circumstances presented, however, the ship's operations are not sufficiently
similar, or related to the civilian fixed facilities' industrial operations, to
warrant the CSB paying for the proposed excursion.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The ethics official requested additional information, including a list of attendees and an agenda
showing the nature of any safety discussions or training planned for the event. On August 2,
2021, there was a call between Dr. Lemos, the CSB's executive counsel, and the ethics official to
discuss the trip. The ethics official expressed her concerns and explained that it was an issue of
appearance. According to the ethics official, nothing was resolved on the call, and Dr. Lemos
never provided the requested information. The ethics official did not provide an ethics opinion to
Dr. Lemos because she did not have an adequate factual basis for one. Dr. Lemos proceeded with
the trip, however, and spent four days and three nights in Norfolk, including one night on the
ship.7 Expenses related to the travel from Washington, D.C., to Norfolk amounted to $1,246.53.8

The OIG interviewed the^^^^J of the organization, who testified that the embarkation did not
have a formal educational component. Safety was a significant concern because aircraft carriers
are hazardous environments, but the embarkation attended by Dr. Lemos had no special focus on
safety themes. There were no formal presentations or discussions related to chemical safety. The
OIG asked the organization to provide all documents and other materials related to the programs,
lectures, and training sessions provided to visitors in connection with the embarkation. None of
the materials provided by the organization referenced any sort of training or a focus on safety
themes. According to the organization' the purpose of the embarkations is to give

visitors an idea of how the military is operating, show them where their tax dollars are going, and
give them an opportunity to talk to the sailors. The^^^^f added that, after an embarkation,
visitors are asked if they want to donate to the organization.

In her testimony to the OIG, Dr. Lemos described the purpose of the trip as "a safety education
meeting and sharing meeting." She testified that she went on the aircraft carrier with "11 other
safety professionals" and that the purpose was to "interact with other safety leaders, learning
how they're doing business, to also learn from the Navy's method of leadership style in quickly
bringing a team together which we needed to do and ... to really share our take-home lessons
learned."

3. Analysis

Dr. Lemos's embarkation on the aircraft carrier was not official CSB business and her use of
Board funds for the travel to Norfolk was a violation of the FTR. Like the travel in Byrd, Dr.
Lemos's trip to Norfolk was not official Board business. When asked by the OIG about the
purpose of the trip, Dr. Lemos explained:

7 The room rate at the hotel where Dr. Lemos stayed on August 8 and 10 was $199 per night, which exceeded the
government approved FY 2021 rate for lodging of $96 per night. An agency may approve actual lodging costs of up
to three times the approved rate in cases where, for example, lodging has been arranged in advance in connection
with a conference or meeting. See 41 C.F.R. § 301-11.300(a); 301-11.303. Dr. Lemos obtained approval from the
CSB's executive counsel to exceed the standard amount.

8 This figure is included in the amounts listed in Table 1, and it does not include airfare from San Diego to
Washington or other travel expenses Dr. Lemos incurred while on travel that week.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 17

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

[I]t was to attend a safety education meeting and sharing meeting. ... I went
on an aircraft carrier with ... 11 other safety professionals. ... The purpose
was to interact with other safety leaders, learn how they are doing business,
to also learn from the Navy's method of leadership style in quickly bringing
a team together which we needed to do and ... to really share our take-home
lessons learned.

When asked how the Navy's mission was relevant to the CSB's mission, which does not cover
maritime accidents, Dr. Lemos testified:

[T]hey have all sorts of safety equipment which I have to learn how to use
and — and we watched being timed. For example, ... several of our CSB
accidents involve release of materials that requires people to don suits. And
that training is incredible. So I learned — safety is cross-domain and at
NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] I learned that. CSB is cross-
domain. We interact with FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], We
interact with [the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration], which is pipeline. It's chemicals. And it was also about
leadership approaches. How to instill safety.

Even if the safety mission of the U.S. Navy overlapped with the safety mission of the CSB, Dr.
Lemos's explanation does not explain how a visit to an aircraft carrier constituted official CSB
business. The CSB ethics official who reviewed the trip request raised this concern in an email
that was forwarded to Dr. Lemos on August 2, 2021. According to the ethics official:

[T]he organization's purpose is essentially to pay for a "welcome home
pier-side celebration for [the ship's] 15,000 plus dependents and family
members" each time the ship returns home from a major deployment — a
laudable purpose, to be sure, but not at all related to the business of the
agency.

Despite these concerns, Dr. Lemos still proceeded with the trip.

Moreover, we do not find Dr. Lemos's explanations of the trip, quoted previously, to be credible.
The materials provided by the organization did not support Dr. Lemos's assertion that the trip
was a "safety education meeting." The^^^^f of the organization testified in his interview
with the OIG that "safety" was not a special focus or theme of the event. There were also no
formal discussions related to chemical safety or to transferring naval safety processes to civilian
land-based industrial enterprises. The evidence uncovered by the OIG likewise provides no
support for Dr. Lemos's testimony that the attendees on the embarkation included "eleven other
safety leaders." Based on the biographical material supplied by the organization, the other guests
were identified as: a retired airline pilot, a solutions architect for a blockchain startup, three
executives in the financial services industry, one lawyer, two presidents of small academic

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

institutions in Missouri and Kansas, two company presidents, and the mayor of a Missouri city.
There is no evidence that these individuals were involved in the chemical industry or chemical
safety.

Based on this evidence, the OIG determined that Dr. Lemos's trip to Norfolk was not for the
purpose of transacting or performing official CSB business, and the use of government funds for
the trip violated the FTR.

B. Travel to Atlanta and Houston

1. Legal Standards

The FTR requires that official travel originate at the employee's official duty station or
temporary duty station, 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1, and the traveler must take the "usually traveled
route," 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.7. If for personal convenience the traveler goes by an indirect or
different route, then the reimbursement will be limited to the cost of travel from the employee's
duty station to the destination by the most direct route. 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.8. In such a case, the
traveler is liable for any additional costs. Id. An agency will not pay excess costs resulting from
taking a circuitous route. 41 C.F.R. § 301-2.4.

2. Facts

In 2021 and 2022, Dr. Lemos took two trips that involved potentially improper expense amounts
because the trips originated from San Diego rather than Washington, D.C.9

On January 29, 2021, Dr. Lemos traveled from San Diego to Atlanta in connection with a CSB
investigation of a fatal incident that occurred on January 28. According to her testimony, she
flew from San Diego on Friday, January 29, gave a press briefing on Saturday afternoon, visited
the processing plant the following day, met with the company's chief executive officer on
Monday, and flew out the following day. The trip to Atlanta resulted in expenses of $1,582.98.

On February 21, 2022, Dr. Lemos traveled from San Diego to Houston to participate in a
community tour and to provide remarks at a conference hosted by a private law firm. The tour
was scheduled as a two-hour event on February 23, and the law firm conference was a full-day
event on February 24. Dr. Lemos returned to San Diego on February 25. The trip to Houston
resulted in five days of travel expenses, for a total of $1,747.52.

3. Analysis

Dr. Lemos's point of departure for these trips was San Diego, rather than Washington, D.C., and
she was in San Diego for her own personal convenience. At the time of the trips, San Diego was

9 Dr. Lemos took another trip originating from San Diego rather than Washington, D.C., but because the trip took
place after she changed her duty station, the OIG was not able to reach a conclusion about whether the expenses
were permissible under the FTR. See Section 1(C)(2) above. On May 9, 2022, Dr. Lemos traveled from San Diego
to San Antonio, Texas, to participate in a panel discussion at the 2022 National Occupational and Process Safety
Conference and Exhibition. Her expenses for this trip were $1,722.10.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

not her official duty station or a temporary duty station. Under the FTR, she was only entitled to
reimbursement for her airfare in the amount it would have cost to travel from Washington, D.C.
If the fare from San Diego was higher, then Dr. Lemos would be responsible for the excess cost.
Dr. Lemos conceded in her testimony to the OIG that she did not conduct a cost comparison for
the trips to Atlanta and Houston. As such, the payment of any expenses related to the excess cost
for these flights would not be permissible under the FTR.

C. Travel to Washington, D.C., for a White House Holiday Reception During a
Continuing Resolution

1. Legal Standards

A CR is a joint resolution that provides temporary funding that allows agencies to continue to
obligate funds for a specific period when Congress has not passed appropriations legislation by
the end of a fiscal year. James V. Saturno, et al., Cong. Research Serv., R42388, The
Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction 13 (2016). Funding provided under a CR
typically allows agencies to obligate funds at the same rate as in the previous fiscal year, which
was the case with the CR that was in place in November and December 2020. See Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act, atDiv. A, Section 101, Pub. L. 116-159
(Oct. 1, 2020); see also OMB Bulletin 21-01 (Oct. 1, 2020), Attachment A.

The CSB, like all federal agencies, retains some administrative discretion to allocate its funding
within a lump-sum appropriation during a CR. See Matter ofDep't of Com., Off. of Inspector
Gen. - Application of Reprogramming Notification Requirement, B-330108, at 3 (Dec. 23, 2020)
(finding that Department of Commerce OIG did not reprogram funds when it reorganized certain
units because it did not shift funds between relevant subdivisions of its lump-sum appropriation).

2. Facts

On November 16, 2020, Dr. Lemos received an invitation to a holiday reception at the White
House, which was scheduled for December 2. At the time, Dr. Lemos had planned to take leave
on December 2-4, 2020. On November 17, 2020, however, she contacted the CSB's^^^^^J

via email asked whether there would be
room in the travel budget for her to take a trip to Washington to attend the reception. At the time,
the federal government was operating under a CR that funded the government through
December 11, 2020.

According to the the CSB only allowed essential travel

during a CR, and the CR itself stated that it "shall be implemented" in a way that "only the most
limited funding action" permitted under the CR shall be taken "in order to provide for [the]
continuation of projects and activities." Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, § 110.

In her email inquiry, Dr. Lemos stated that the trip to D.C. "would be in the best interest of [her]
agency's progress in terms of networking" and would ensure she had time to work with a
recently hired senior advisor to Dr. Lemos. On November 19, the

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 20

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

responded with an email listing several reasons why it would not be in the best interests of the
Board for Dr. Lemos to take a "non-essential trip to Washington" during the CR, including the
fact that "the agency ha[d] spent almost $8K on [her] travel alone since October" and that Dr.
Lemos had previously "agreed that [she was] fine without traveling anymore [that] calendar
year." Dr. Lemos responded that she had a different view of the "determination of essential" and
that she would discuss it further with the who was the direct

supervisor of the

In the end, the authorized $2,000 for Dr. Lemos to travel to

Washington, D.C., from November 30 to December 4, 2020, with Dr. Lemos paying any
expenses over the authorized amount. The funds were moved from the internal CSB line item for
investigations travel to the chairperson's travel, both of which were included within the CSB's
overall travel budget.

3. Analysis

The OIG did not substantiate the allegation that Dr. Lemos's December 2020 trip to Washington,
D.C., violated restrictions associated with the CR that was in place at the time. The CR did not
suspend travel for CSB personnel; instead, it permitted the CSB to continue spending at the same
rate as in the previous fiscal year. While the understood

that only "essential" travel was allowed during a CR, she could not identify any legal authority
or guidance document to support her understanding. According to her, the CSB did not have a
written policy relating to travel restrictions under a CR.

The CSB retains some level of discretion to shift funds within a lump-sum appropriation during a
CR. See B-330108. According to when Dr. Lemos requested

funding for the December 2020 trip, she had already used up her allocated travel funds under the
CR. Ultimately, the approved $2,000 for the trip, and $2,000 was

moved from the investigations travel budget to the chairperson's travel budget. This movement
of funds appears to be consistent with the CSB's general discretion to shift funds within a lump-
sum appropriation.

Although Dr. Lemos was not permitted under the FTR to use government funds for any of her
trips to her official duty station in Washington, D.C., including this trip, the OIG did not
substantiate the allegation that the funding of the December 2020 trip also violated restrictions
associated with the CR.

D. Conclusion

Dr. Lemos's embarkation on a naval aircraft carrier was not official CSB business and her use of
government funds for the travel to Norfolk constituted a violation of the FTR. The flights to
Atlanta and Houston should have been expensed at the cost of travel from Dr. Lemos's duty
station in Washington, D.C. Under the FTR, any additional expense incurred in traveling from
San Diego was Dr. Lemos's responsibility. Finally, the OIG did not substantiate the allegation

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

that Dr. Lemos's trip to Washington for the White House holiday reception was a separate
violation of restrictions associated with the CR that was in place at the time.

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents
may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

22

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Chapter 3: The Furnishing and Redecorating of Dr. Lemos's Office

Evidence gathered in the OIG's investigation shows that the CSB incurred expenses of more than
$22,000 to furnish and redecorate Dr. Lemos's office at the CSB's headquarters in Washington,
D.C. This amount is more than four times the amount allowed under federal law without prior
notification to Congress, which the CSB conceded that it did not provide. In addition, the
documentation for one purchase order appears to have been designed to obscure the fact that the
furniture covered by that purchase order was intended for Dr. Lemos's office.

A. Legal Standards

The heads of federal agencies are subject to limitations on the amounts that can be spent to
furnish or redecorate their offices. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, the
"head of any department or agency, or any other officer or civilian employee of the Federal
Government appointed by the President of the United States" may not spend more than $5,000
during his or her term in office "to furnish or redecorate" his or her office, unless advance notice
is provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate. Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-93, Div. C, Title VII, § 710 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Section
710). The term "office" includes "the entire suite of offices assigned to the individual, as well as
any other space used primarily by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled by the
individual." ld. \ see also U.S. Dep't of Hons, and Urban Dev. - Compliance with Statutory
Notification Requirement and the Antideficiency Act, B-329955, at 6 (May 16, 2019) (finding
that dining room and kitchen adjacent to agency head's office were "used primarily by" and
"directly controlled by" agency head, and thus were within the statutory meaning of "office" for
purposes of the $5,000 cap).

A violation of Section 710 also constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C.
§ 1341(a)(1)(A). The Anti deficiency Act provides that "an officer or employee of the United
States Government... may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an
amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation." Because
Congress has the power to condition the appropriation of funds on the satisfaction of a
notification requirement, as it has done in Section 710, a violation of the notification requirement
constitutes a violation of the Anti deficiency Act. See Matter of Fed. Mar. Comm 'n - Failure to
Comply with Statutory Notification Requirement and the Antideficiency Act, B-327432, at 3
(June 30, 2016); see also B-329955, at 7. If an agency determines that a violation of the
Antideficiency Act has occurred, then the head of that agency must report all relevant facts and
provide a statement of actions taken to the president and Congress, with copies of each report to
the comptroller general. See 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

The Federal Management Regulation also places limits on federal agencies' ability to purchase
furniture. Before acquiring new furniture, an agency is required to "make a determination as to
whether the requirements of the agency can be met through the utilization of already owned
items." 41 C.F.R. § 101-25.104. In addition, "[t]he acquisition of new items shall be limited to
those requirements which are considered absolutely essential and shall not include upgrading to
improve appearance, office decor, or status, or to satisfy the desire for the latest design or more

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents

may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

expensive lines." Id. Once that determination has been made, the purchase of new furniture can
only be done under certain circumstances. Id. In all of these cases, the agency's justification must
be documented and maintained in the agency's file. Id. In cases in which the purchase of new
furniture is justified, the agency is still limited to "the least expensive lines which will meet the
requirement." Id.

Per the regulation, federal agencies should only purchase new furniture when absolutely
necessary. When purchasing new furniture, agencies should select the least expensive option that
will meet the requirement. Expenses that "would serve no purpose other than accommodating
employees' personal tastes ... generally cannot justify the expenditure of appropriated funds."
U.S. Dep't. of Navy v. Fed. Labor Rel. Bd., 665 F.3d 1339, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (finding that
an agency's use of appropriated funds to purchase bottled water for employees was improper
when safe and drinkable tap water was already available).

Agencies are permitted to make purchases below a certain threshold without soliciting quotations
from multiple vendors, a type of acquisition that is called a micro-purchase. CSB Board
Order 24, Part III § 15(a); see also Federal Acquisition Regulation § 13.203(a)(2). At the time of
the furniture purchase in this investigation, the CSB's micro-purchase threshold was $10,000.
CSB Board Order 24, Part III § 16(b). Agencies may not split a transaction into multiple
purchases that are below the threshold to avoid the requirements for acquisitions above the
micro-purchase threshold. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 13.003(c)(2).

B. Facts

The CSB moved into a new office space on September 21, 2015, and acquired new furniture as
part of that move. Within a month of starting her term as chairperson of the CSB in April 2020,
Dr. Lemos expressed a desire to purchase new furniture for her office. She complained to
colleagues and others that her office was small and that it was not set up for her particular work
style. She wanted a desk that would move up and down, allowing her to work in a standing
position, and she also stated that the office was not set up well for teleconferencing during the
coronavirus pandemic. According to another witness, Dr. Lemos expressed a desire for a "casual
meeting space" in her office where she could "sit down with [her] guests," and she talked about
having a television on the wall. She also expressed a desire for a wardrobe because she expected
to travel frequently and wanted a place to store clothing.

In her interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos testified that the existing furniture was "broken" and
"non-functional." When asked to provide examples, she said that one of the drawers was difficult
to push in, the conference table was small, and the coat closet was too short for her blazer. Other
witnesses provided contrary testimony about the condition of the furniture. In the opinion of a
CSB staff member the furniture was

serviceable; furthermore, according to this staff member none of it was broken or nonfunctional,
and the previous occupant of the office had never complained about it. A representative from Dr.
Lemos's furniture dealer inspected the previous furniture as well and found that "it looked like

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
fQR OFFICIAL USE ONfc¥

pretty new or ... unabused furniture. ... I don't think anybody would look at it and say that it was
dilapidated or broken." The serviceable condition of the existing furniture in Dr. Lemos's office
was confirmed by a series of photographs taken by a CSB staffer on May 15, 2020, and reviewed
by the OIG.

Photographs of the existing furniture in Dr. Lernos's office (Room 906), taken by a CSB staff member on
May 15, 2020 (detail).

In June of 2020, Dr. Lemos began working with representatives of a furniture vendor that was
recommended by had previously worked in the furniture

business, and he had been professional colleagues with certain personnel at the vendor.10 Dr.
Lemos met with the vendor's representatives for the first time on June 23, 2020. In a follow-up
email a couple of days later, she explained to them, "I've been afforded the opportunity to
remake the space as I wish."

Documents obtained by the OIG showed that, from early in the discussions with the vendor, the
plan for Dr. Lemos's office included two lounge chairs. In July 2020, the vendor provided Dr.
Lemos with several graphic renderings and floor plans reflecting possible furniture options for
her office. The first diagram, dated July 9, showed a design that included a small conference
table with four chairs. On July 13, Dr. Lemos's^^^J suggested replacing the conference table
and chairs with two "soft lounge chairs" and a small table, ]ater stated in an email

that his suggestions were based on his "feel" for "Katherinef's] style." The vendor then provided
an updated rendering dated July 20 that included two lounge chairs and a small table placed in
Dr. Lemos's office where the conference table had been. All of the office renderings and
diagrams that the vendor provided to Dr. Lemos from that point on included two lounge chairs in

10 The furniture vendor was a GSA-approved vendor, as were the two furniture manufacturers involved in the
purchase orders.

is the pr-»pei4y-e£#ic EPA Office of Inspoctor-Seftepal, Administrative Investigations Directorate. It-and its contents
fnoy not bo reproduced or disclosed witheut written permission. Thio report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized porsons4s prohibited.

23-N-0020 25

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

her office. In the September 10 rendering, the chairs were shown in red upholstery, which was
the color Dr. Lemos ultimately chose.

While the discussions with the vendor proceeded, Dr. Lemos asked CSB staff members various
questions about how the furniture purchases would be funded. She understood that the
acquisition needed to be done as a micro-purchase, which had a limit of $10,000. Dr. Lemos
addressed similar questions to a different furniture dealer. In an email to Dr. Lemos, that dealer
explained, "I have also seen agencies split purchases to get projects through that are over the
$10K amount. It's not supposed to happen, but often times, it does." Three days later, Dr. Lemos
emailed CSB's^^^^^^^^^^J and asked, "If we have two different micro-orders, one for
[one manufacturer], another for a different MFG (also GSA), would that fit within the
guidelines?" The responded, "The purchases are doable" (emphasis in

original). That same day, Dr. Lemos emailed the furniture vendor and reported, "I do have a path
forward on the funding."

Dr. Lemos made her final selections regarding the items, finishes, and upholstery she wanted,
which included two lounge chairs with matching footrests in a red leather upholstery called
"Chili Pepper." That upholstery selection was in the category the manufacturer designated as
"Upper Crust." According to the vendor's representative who was interviewed by the OIG, the
"Chili Pepper" leather was listed in price grade "Leather V," which was the second-highest price
category for leather upholstery offered by the manufacturer. The selection of that leather added
more than $4,340 to the price of the chairs and matching ottomans as compared with the least
expensive fabric upholstery. For the seat of her desk chair, Dr. Lemos chose a lavender-toned
leather called "Showcase Lilac." This selection was in the highest category of leather upholstery
offered by that manufacturer, and it added more than $130 to the price of the chair.

The CSB generated two purchase orders for the furniture selected by Dr. Lemos. One order was
designated as being for Room 906, which was Dr. Lemos's office. The other order was
designated as being for Room 907, an office immediately adjacent to Dr. Lemos's office. Room
907 had previously been assigned to board members but had no occupant at the time. CSB staff
members told the OIG that Dr. Lemos had expressed a desire to use Room 907 as her "sitting
area," "library," or "overflow" area. According to one staff member, Dr. Lemos "said that that
needed to be her extra room ... [because] her office was too small." Another staff member
reported that Dr. Lemos had discussed increasing the size of her own office by taking down the
wall between the two offices, though that idea never went forward. The previous discussions
with the vendor had not included any plan to place furniture in Room 907.

The purchase order for Room 906, which was purchase order 95315820F00002, dated
September 17, 2020, included a desk, desk chair, height-adjustable desk, storage cabinet, free-
standing wardrobe, dry erase board, and various other items. According to the purchase order,
"The purpose of this task order [was] to provide office furniture for the Chairman's office." The
amount of the award was $9,690.38, just below the $10,000 threshold for a micro-purchase.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
fQR OFFICIAL USE ONfc¥

The purchase order for Room 907, which was purchase order 95315820F00003, dated
September 28, 2020, consisted of the two leather lounge chairs and matching leather ottomans,
and a 20-inch diameter laptop table. According to the award, "The purpose of this task order
[was] to provide for office furniture for vacant office 907 within the Office of Administration."
The amount of this purchase order was $8,895.17, which was likewise below the micro-purchase
threshold. The vendor never created a floor plan or schematic diagram showing the placement of
furniture in Room 907. In an interview with the OIG, the vendor's representative said that he did
not recall who at the CSB asked him to create a separate order for Room 907. All of the vendor's
renderings showed the lounge chairs inside Dr. Lemos's office, Room 906. The vendor's
representative testified to the OIG that he understood from Dr. Lemos that the lounge chairs were
intended for her office.

Pursuant to the CSB's approval process for administrative expenses, the Board'

obtained the required internal approvals for the two purchase orders on September 10
and 18. We asked the CSB to provide any findings or analyses under the Federal Management
Regulation that the Board's needs could not have been met with furniture that was already
owned, or that the previous furniture was broken and could not be "economically repaired," but
there were no such documents in the CSB's files. Moreover, the Board's
did not know if Dr. Lemos's choices were the least expensive options that would meet the
requirements. He was also unaware of the Federal Management Regulation. The CSB provided
no advance notice to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives or the
Senate that the furniture purchase for Dr. Lemos would exceed the $5,000 cap

Approximately one month before the new furniture was delivered, a CSB staff person was asked
to move the existing furniture out of Dr. Lemos's office, Room 906. That staff person did not
receive instructions to move any furniture out of Room 907. On November 30 and December 9,
2020, the staff person asked the vendor whether Room 907 needed to be cleared out in advance
of the furniture delivery. The staff member never received an answer and none of the furniture in
Room 907 was moved out before the
delivery.

The furniture from both orders was
delivered to the CSB on December 15,
2020, and all the items, except the
wardrobe, were installed in Dr.

Lemos's office, Room 906. The
wardrobe was placed in the hallway
outside her door because it would not
fit well in her office. The vendor's sales
representative was present during the
delivery and installation, and he
directed that the furniture be installed in

The lounge chairs, ottomans, and table installed in Dr. Lemos's
office, Room 906. The vendors sales representative took the
photo and sent it to Dr. Lemos on December 15, 2020 (detail).

is the pr-»pei4y-e£#ic EPA Office of Inspoctor-Seftepal, Administrative Invostigatie-ns Directorate. It-and its contents
fnoy not bo reproduced or disclosed witheut written permission. Thio report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized porsons4s prohibited.

23-N-0020 27

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Room 906, pursuant to the vendor's drawings. After the installation, the sales representative took
photos of the new furniture in Room 906 and emailed them to Dr. Lemos. The photos showed
the lounge chairs and other items that were included in the purchase order for Room 907.

In addition to the furniture, the CSB incurred other expenses related to the refurbishment of
Dr. Lemos's office. An electrical contractor added or moved electrical outlets to accommodate
Dr. Lemos's new height-adjustable desk and the wall monitor panel where a television was to be
placed. The total expense for that work was $2,300. A service provider hauled away the existing
furniture in Dr. Lemos's office, at a cost of $325.42. And an air purifier was purchased for Dr.
Lemos's office at a cost of $549. The total amount spent on the two furniture orders plus the
additional expenses was $21,759.97.

The OIG conducted site visits to the CSB's offices on August 24 and October 7, 2021, and
confirmed on both occasions that the furniture from the Room 907 purchase order was in
Dr. Lemos's office, Room 906. The OIG conducted an additional site visit to the CSB on
February 9, 2022, and confirmed that the freestanding wardrobe outside Dr. Lemos's office was
locked. According to a CSB staff Dr.

Lemos had the key to the wardrobe because "it's there for her use," and the staff member kept a
backup key.

C. Analysis

The evidence compiled by the OIG supports a finding that the furniture purchase constituted a
violation of the Federal Management Regulation, 41 C.F.R. § 101-25.104, and of the
$5,000 statutory cap in Section 710.

1. Violation of the Federal Management Regulation

Under the Federal Management Regulation, the CSB could only purchase new furniture that was
"absolutely essential," and only if the Board's needs could not "be met through the utilization of
already owned items." 41 C.F.R. § 101-25.104. If those conditions were met, the CSB was
required to make a written determination that the items being replaced were not "economically
repairable." Id. The Board was also required to select items from "the least expensive lines" that
would meet the Board's needs. The new furniture could not be for the purpose of "upgrading to
improve appearance, office decor, or status, or to satisfy the desire for the latest design or more
expensive lines." Id.

In this case, the CSB could provide no documentation of an analysis or determination made by
CSB personnel regarding whether the CSB's needs could be met with furniture that was already
owned or whether the CSB's existing furniture was broken and could not be "economically
repaired." Moreover, the record does not support Dr. Lemos's assertion in her OIG interview that
the preexisting furniture was broken or nonfunctional. The CSB moved into its current offices on
September 21, 2015, and acquired new furniture as part of that move. The preexisting furniture
would have been less than five years old at the beginning of Dr. Lemos's term in April 2020. The

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CSB staffer considered the furniture to be serviceable. And the

vendor's representative told the OIG that he did not think anybody would "look at [the furniture]
and say that it was dilapidated or broken."

In addition, some of Dr. Lemos's furniture choices were not "limited to the least expensive
lines," as required by the Federal Management Regulation. 41 C.F.R. § 101-25.104. Some of the
furniture choices appear to have been made in an effort to "upgrad[e] to improve appearance,
office decor, or status, or to satisfy the desire for the latest design or more expensive lines," id.,
in contravention of the regulations. For example, the red-leather upholstery that Dr. Lemos chose
for the lounge chairs and matching footrests was in the second-highest price category for leather
upholstery offered by the manufacturer. The selection of that leather added more than $4,340 to
the price of the chairs and matching ottomans. The lavender-toned leather that Dr. Lemos chose
for the seat of her desk chair was in the highest category of leather upholstery offered by the
manufacturer, and it added more than $130 to the price of the chair. Expenses that "serve no
purpose other than accommodating employees' personal tastes" are not a justifiable use of
appropriated funds. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 665 F.3d at 1350. Dr. Lemos may have believed she had
been given "an opportunity to remake the space as [she] wish[ed]," but federal regulations did
not permit her to do so.

2. Violation of the $5.000 Cap—Room 906 Furniture

The evidence also supports a finding that, in purchasing furniture for her office, Room 906,
Dr. Lemos and the CSB spent more than the $5,000 permitted by law without the required
advance notice to Congress. In her interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos conceded that the
statutory limit on expenses for office refurbishment was $5,000, and that the congressional
committees were never given advance notice. The furniture on the purchase order for Room 906
alone cost $9,690.38. The electrical outlet installations, removal of existing furniture, and
purchase of an air purifier added another $3,174.42. This brought the total cost "to furnish or
redecorate" Dr. Lemos's office to $12,864.80, based on the expenses that the CSB attributed to
Room 906. Dr. Lemos did not provide advance notice of the amount exceeding $5,000 to the
Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives or the Senate. As such, the
amount spent in excess of $5,000 was in violation of Section 710.

The freestanding wardrobe included in the order for Room 906 warrants a separate discussion. In
her interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos stated repeatedly that the wardrobe was for the use of the
entire Board and not for her use alone. If that testimony was true, then under Section 710, the
cost of the wardrobe could be excluded from the expenses of furnishing or redecorating her
office. Section 710 expressly states, however, that the term "office" includes "the entire suite of
offices assigned to the [agency head], as well as any other space used primarily by the individual
or the use of which is directly controlled by the individual." As such, any item "used primarily
by" Dr. Lemos or "directly controlled by" her should therefore be included in the total.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The facts and circumstances suggest that the wardrobe was used primarily by Dr. Lemos and was
directly controlled by her. First, the wardrobe was part of the purchase order for Room 906,
which was "to provide office furniture for the Chairman's office." Second, the wardrobe was
placed immediately outside the door to Dr. Lemos's office. Third, there is testimony from CSB
staff members and the vendor's representative that the wardrobe was for Dr. Lemos's use alone
and not for the use of the entire Board. In the words of one staff member, Dr. Lemos expressed a
desire to have a closet for her clothes "since she was coming back and forth from San
Diego ... [and] not wanting to have to transport clothes back and forth." According to the
vendor's representative, the wardrobe was placed in the hallway because it would not fit well in
her office. Fourth, the OIG determined that the wardrobe was not available for others to use
because it was locked and Dr. Lemos had custody of the key. The OIG conducted a visit to the
CSB's office on February 9, 2022, and found that the wardrobe was locked. When the wardrobe
was opened with a backup key maintained by a staff person, the OIG found that it was filled to
capacity with what appeared to be women's clothing. Fifth, CSB staff members had other places
where they could hang their coats, including their own offices and the coat closet located in the
reception area. Based on these facts and circumstances, the OIG does not find Dr. Lemos's
testimony about the wardrobe to be credible. Because the evidence shows that the wardrobe was
for Dr. Lemos's use alone, the cost of the wardrobe should be included in the total expenditure
for furnishing and redecorating Dr. Lemos's office.

3. Violation of the $5.000 Cap—Room 907 Furniture

Dr. Lemos's testimony to the OIG prompted the question whether the furniture that was on the
purchase order designated for Room 907 should be included in the total expenses for furnishing
and redecorating her office. Dr. Lemos testified that these items were intended for the use of the
entire Board. Considering all the evidence, however, the OIG determined that the items on the
Room 907 purchase order were intended for Dr. Lemos's own use and should be included in the
total.

The purchase order for Room 907 covered five items: two leather lounge chairs, two matching
leather footrests, and one small laptop table. In her testimony to the OIG, Dr. Lemos stated
repeatedly that this furniture "was for a conference room," "a private space for people to talk that
wasn't [their] own office." She testified that the Board "needed a space, a private space. There
was no conference room on this end of the building. ... So we had planned to outfit a place for
staff and [personal assistants] to share conversations without having to take up the larger
conference rooms or the open conference room." Dr. Lemos specifically stated that this would
not be her personal conference room but an "agency staff conference room." Dr. Lemos
reiterated these points in the letter from her personal legal counsel dated February 10, 2022:

With staff guidance, Dr. Lemos also agreed to convert an empty office in
the administrative arm of the offices into a conference room. That way, Dr.

Lemos, future appointees, and CSB employees would have a private space
available for small meetings that satisfied COVID safety protocols. There

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents
may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

30

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

was no such space in the administrative section. The CSB chose the office
next door to Dr. Lemos' office because it had some temperature control
issues (reported by facilities management) that made it undesirable as a
permanent office. As part of the conversion from an office to a conference
room, that space needed to be refurnished.

[The explained to Dr. Lemos that it made

sense to convert the conference room at that point in time because
employees had not ye^eturnedtoCSBoffice^and any disruption would
be minimal. [The also explained that

refurnishing both offices at the same time would maximize efficiency and
the budget had available funds for these purchases.

The furniture was for two rooms—Dr. Lemos' office (Office 906) and the
new conference room (Office 907).

In her interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos admitted that the furniture listed on the purchase order
for Room 907 was delivered and installed in her office, Room 906, on December 15, 2020. She
testified that the furniture was being held in her office temporarily because Room 907 had not
been emptied. She also testified that it was still there more than one year later.

Dr. Lemos went on to testify that the CSB only found out a month prior to her December 2021
interview that Room 907 "wasn't inhabitable." She stated, "In fact, I didn't even learn until, um,
a month ago that none of the old ... board member offices were cleaned. They still have all their
personal effects in there. So, we've been making progress on that because we have new board
members coming. ... It's hard to believe that people leave everything in their office." According
to Dr. Lemos's testimony, the Room 907 furniture "was delivered to [her] office knowing that
[they] would need to take out the other furniture, which would cost extra money."

The OIG was unable to find any documents or testimony to support Dr. Lemos's statements
regarding her intention to use the lounge chairs for a staff conference space in Room 907. To the
contrary, the OIG uncovered a significant amount of evidence contradicting Dr. Lemos's
testimony and, based on the weight of that evidence, the OIG does not find Dr. Lemos's
testimony regarding the Room 907 furniture to be credible.

First, the lounge chairs were part of the written plan for Dr. Lemos's office—not Room 907—as
far back as July 2020. On a July 13, 2020 call with the vendor, Dr. Lemos's^^^J suggested
replacing the conference table with a "soft seating option." From that point on, the diagrams and
floor plans that the vendor provided to Dr. Lemos show two lounge chairs and a small table in
Dr. Lemos's office in exactly the position where they were ultimately installed. The vendor
representative confirmed that no schematic diagrams were ever made showing the lounge chairs
in Room 907 because he understood that they were always intended for Dr. Lemos's office.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 31

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Second, the lounge chairs and other items from the Room 907 purchase order were delivered and
installed in Dr. Lemos's office. The vendor's representative who was on site during the delivery
emailed Dr. Lemos photos of the items in her office after the installation was complete. Dr.
Lemos did not complain that the lounge chairs had been delivered to her office in error. She
conceded that the items were put in her office and were still there as of the date of her OIG
interview. The OIG conducted site visits to the CSB's offices on August 24 and October 7, 2021,
and found the chairs placed in the exact position shown in the vendor's renderings and floor
plans. Whether or not Dr. Lemos ever had different plans for the lounge chairs and other items,
she did in fact use them to furnish her own office.

Third, none of the CSB staff members we interviewed had ever heard Dr. Lemos discuss using
Room 907 for a staff conference room. To the contrary, CSB staff members testified that Dr.
Lemos wanted to use Room 907 as her own personal "sitting area" or "library," and that all the
furniture was for her use. As one former staff member testified, "[A]ll the furniture was for the
chairperson. Okay? Make no mistake about that. All the furniture was for the
chairman. ... [EJveryone knew, yes, that it was for the chairman. ... it was specifically for the
chairman," Another CSB staff member testified, "[TJhat's the additional office she said that she
needed. ... She said that it needed to be her extra room ... [because] her office was too small."

Fourth, Dr. Lemos's testimony that Room 907 was "uninhabitable" because the previous
occupant's personal effects had not been cleared away was contradicted by CSB staff member
testimony and the OIG's observations. The CSB staff member testified

that, at the time the furniture was delivered, there were no personal effects in Room 907. The
OIG conducted site visits to the CSB's offices on August 24, 2021, and October 7, 2021, and
saw no personal effects in Room 907, only standard office furniture. Moreover, if the Board
wanted the room cleared, it could have done so at any point prior to the delivery of the new
furniture or afterwards. In fact, the CSB staff member

asked the vendor on more than one occasion if Room 907 should be cleared of
its existing furniture or if any other preparation for the new furniture was necessary. No answer
was provided.

Fifth, Dr. Lemos's testimony regarding the need for an additional conference room is not
credible given the existing conference rooms at the CSB. At the time of the OIG's investigation,
there were four conference rooms in the office suite, three of which had doors that would close.
The CSB is a very small agency. As of September 2020, when the furniture order was placed, the
total headcount for the Washington, D.C., headquarters office was 16 employees. As of March
2022, the total was 14 employees. In addition, every current CSB staff member had an office
with a door that would close. The assertion that the CSB needed a fifth conference room for
barely more than a dozen employees is simply not plausible.

Finally, the furniture listed on the Room 907 purchase order is not typical conference room
furniture. It consisted of two bright-red leather lounge chairs, matching ottomans, and a laptop
table with a 20-inch diameter surface. It strains credulity to believe that Dr. Lemos intended to

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020 32

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

provide CSB staff members with a conference room where they would be able to meet privately
while sitting in red-leather lounge chairs with their feet resting on matching leather ottomans.

In summary, the OIG found no evidence to support Dr. Lemos's testimony on this point and a
significant amount of evidence contradicting it. As such, the OIG does not find Dr. Lemos's
testimony regarding the Room 907 furniture to be credible. The overwhelming weight of the
evidence supports a finding that the Room 907 furniture was always intended for Dr. Lemos's
own office, Room 906.

The OIG was not able to determine how the chairs, ottomans, and laptop table came to be
designated for Room 907; nor were we able to determine who was responsible for structuring the
purchase in that way or directing that it be done. The witness testimony was inconclusive, and
the OIG was unable to uncover any documentary evidence answering the question.

Dr. Lemos was aware, however, that some of the furniture was designated in the paperwork as
being for Room 907. She used the Room 907 designation herself in correspondence with the
vendor. In her December 2021 interview with the OIG and her counsel's letter to the OIG on
February 10, 2022, Dr. Lemos maintained that the Room 907 furniture was intended to go in Room
907, despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary and the fact that the furniture went into her
own office. Considering all the evidence, the Room 907 designation suggests an intent to obscure
the fact that the furniture was going into Dr. Lemos's office.

D. Conclusion

The OIG substantiated the allegations regarding the furnishing and redecorating of Dr. Lemos's
office. The evidence supports a determination that the CSB incurred expenses of $22,057.26 to
furnish and redecorate Dr. Lemos's office, in violation of the Federal Management Regulation
and the $5,000 cap allowed under federal law without notification to Congress.11

11 On April 15, 2022, Dr. Lemos notified the White House and the comptroller general of a violation of the
Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, based on the purchase of furniture for her office, but only for the furniture
included on the purchase order for Room 906. She did not include the furniture on the Room 907 purchase order or
any of the incidental expenses mentioned above.

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Chapter 4: The Noncompetitive Hiring of Senior Advisors

The OIG also investigated whether Dr. Lemos improperly hired two senior aides on a
noncompetitive basis, including a senior advisor from Northrop Grumman, Dr. Lemos's former
employer. The investigation did not substantiate any allegation of misconduct related to the
hiring of the two senior aides.

A. Legal Standards

In the Senior Executive Service, or SES, federal law provides for various types of
noncompetitive appointments, including "limited-term appointments" and "noncareer
appointments." A limited-term appointee is "an individual appointed under a nonrenewable
appointment for a term of 3 years or less to a Senior Executive Service position the duties of
which will expire at the end of such term." 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A noncareer appointee is "an
individual in a Senior Executive Service position who is not a career appointee, a limited term
appointee, or a limited emergency appointee." 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(7).

An appointment to one of these positions must fulfill the following requirements:

• The appointee "shall meet the qualifications of the position to which appointed, as
determined in writing by the appointing authority," 5 U.S.C. § 3394(a); see also

5 C.F.R. § 317.603.

• An individual may not be appointed as a noncareer appointee or limited-term
appointee without prior approval from the OPM. See 5 U.S.C. § 3394(b); 5 C.F.R.
§ 317.601.

If those requirements are met, then neither the noncareer appointment nor the limited-term
appointment requires the agency to use merit hiring procedures. See 5 C.F.R. § 317.603.

B. Facts and Analysis

In 2020 and 2021, the CSB made two noncompetitive appointments of SES personnel. The first
individual was appointed to a noncareer position as senior advisor, under 5 U.S.C. § 3394(a),
effective November 8, 2020. This individual had worked with Dr. Lemos at Northrop Grumman.
The second individual was appointed to a nonrenewable three-year limited-term SES position as
senior advisor and executive counsel, under 5 U.S.C. § 3394(a), on January 12, 2021.

From the evidence uncovered by the OIG, both appointments appear to have fulfilled the
statutory requirements for noncompetitive SES appointments. The appointments required a
determination in writing by the "appointing authority" that each appointee "meet[s] the
qualifications of the position to which appointed." 5 U.S.C. § 3394(a). Dr. Lemos served as the
"appointing authority" as required by Section 3394 and CSB Board Order 23(6)(a). In both
cases, she provided a written determination for each appointee in the signed OPM Forms 1652.
Each appointment received individual approval from OPM. The record reflects that the

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

requirements for both individuals' appointments were satisfied. There appears to be no statutory
or regulatory violation in making the appointments on a noncompetitive basis.

C. Conclusion

The OIG did not substantiate any allegation of misconduct related to the noncompetitive hiring
of two senior aides.

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents
may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

35

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Chapter 5: Dr. Lemos's Use of Board Funds for Her Own Training

The evidence gathered in the OIG's investigation shows that Dr. Lemos used $24,700 of Board
funds to receive media training and executive coaching from two outside providers. The OIG
determined that the use of these funds for Dr. Lemos's training without prior approval from
OPM violated the Government Employees Training Act, or GETA, and OPM regulations.

A. Legal Standards

Training for federal employees is governed by the GETA, which mandates the creation of
agency training programs and establishes the categories of expenses that an agency may pay or
reimburse to employees for approved training. 5 U.S.C. §§ 4103, 4109. By statute, presidential
appointees may not use agency funds for their own training, "unless the individual is specifically
designated by the President for training." 5 U.S.C. § 4102(a)(2)(B). OPM has been delegated the
authority to designate presidential appointees for training by Executive Order 11895 (Jan. 6,
1976). OPM, in turn, delegates to the head of each agency the authority to authorize training for
other presidential appointees. An agency head may not authorize his or her own training. 5
C.F.R. § 410.302(c). Agency heads must submit training requests to the OPM for review because
self-review would constitute a conflict of interest. Id. The OPM has created procedures for such
requests. Without OPM approval, agency heads are barred by law from using agency funds for
their own training.

B. Facts and Analysis

In the summer of 2020, the CSB engaged a media training firm to provide "Media Training for
Dr. Lemos." Dr. Lemos received media training from this vendor multiple times when she
worked at Northrop Grumman. In her testimony to the OIG, Dr. Lemos could not recall how
many times she received media training from the vendor at Northrop Grumman, but she said it
was "routine." Dr. Lemos also received media training from other providers when she was at the
National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Dr. Lemos expressed an interest in obtaining media training soon after arriving at the CSB. The
vendor made contact with her in June 2020. After some discussions, the vendor provided a
proposal with a rate of $5,000 for a half-day training session and $10,000 for a full day. The
vendor was not a GSA vendor and did not have a government rate, but the CSB engaged the
company anyway and did not consider other vendors. A micro-purchase request form was
completed on June 18, 2020, noting that the justification for the request was "Media Training for
Dr. Lemos," and it was approved the next day.

The vendor provided three partial-day training sessions for Dr. Lemos in July 2020. The sessions
focused on media skills and messaging. On July 28, 2020, the vendor submitted an invoice to the
CSB for $10,000, describing the services provided as "Media Training and Messaging Program
for Katherine Lemos (includes 7/13, 7/16 and 7/21)." According to the vendor interviewed by the
OIG, a CSB employee was present in these sessions but did not participate in the training.

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents

may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The CSB engaged the vendor for another training session for Dr. Lemos that took place on
September 25, 2020, for which the CSB was invoiced $2,500. The invoice described the services
provided as "Media Training/Prep/Messaging for Dr. Katherine Lemos." The purpose of the
session was to prepare Dr. Lemos for a video shoot. According to Dr. Lemos, no other CSB
employees were present for the training session.

The vendor provided another two training sessions for Dr. Lemos on September 27 and 28, 2021,
for which the CSB was invoiced another $10,000. The CSB micro-purchase request form stated
that the purpose of the request was "media training for the Chairman." The vendor's invoice
described the services provided as "Media Training/Prep/Messaging for Dr. Katherine Lemos
and Leadership Team." The sessions in September 2021 were intended to prepare Dr. Lemos for
her testimony before a congressional committee. According to Dr. Lemos, two CSB senior
advisors participated in the sessions to prepare questions she would likely receive from members
of the committee. According to the vendor, the other CSB personnel in attendance were not
undergoing training themselves; they were present as observers.

Each of the vendor's three engagements was done as a separate micro-purchase. In her testimony
to the OIG, Dr. Lemos stated that each of the micro-purchase requests had a different scope of
work.

In September of 2020, the CSB engaged a consultant to provide Dr. Lemos with "Executive
Coaching support and a strategic plan regarding Government Relations." According to an August
18, 2020 email from Dr. Lemos, the highest priority for the engagement with the consultant was
"Individual coaching (similar to[the media training vendor])." The total value of the contract
award was $10,000. Dr. Lemos met with the consultant for one-on-one coaching sessions on
October 8 and 30, 2020, for which the CSB was invoiced $2,200. Dr. Lemos described the
sessions as providing "individual coaching on how to interact with the government and the
various entities."

In an interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos stated that she had not been aware of the requirement to
obtain OPM approval before using Board funds for her own training expenses and had not done
so.

In her June 15, 2023 response to the OIG's preliminary report of investigation, Dr. Lemos,
through her personal legal counsel, asserted that:

[T]he training sessions included other CSB employee participants (not just
Dr. Lemos), were for furthering the agency's mission, and were discussed
with contracting staff in advance. Most important, these contracts were
reviewed and approved through appropriate CSB channels in advance.

As explained above, however, the CSB micro-purchase requests and the vendor's and the
consultant's invoices show that the media training was intended for Dr. Lemos. Some of the
training sessions were attended by other CSB personnel, but those individuals were not receiving

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

training; they were present as observers. And although the training vendor contracts were
reviewed and approved by CSB staff, Dr. Lemos never sought or received approval from the
OPM to use government funds for her own training, as required by GETA and OPM regulations.

C. Conclusion

The OIG substantiated the concerns about the use of Board funds for Dr. Lemos's training.
Dr. Lemos incurred a total of $22,500 in expenses for media training and $2,200 for executive
coaching, without approval from OPM. As chairperson of the CSB, Dr. Lemos was not entitled
to use CSB funds to pay for her own training without obtaining OPM approval in advance.

This report is tho property of tho EPA Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Diroctorato. It and its contents
may not bo reproduced or disclosed without written permission. This report is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Further disclosure of

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

38

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Appendix A

On May 11, 2021, the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
issued a press release that, among other things, raised questions about Dr. Lemos's travel and
office refurbishment. As noted in the Report of Investigation (see p. 7), Dr. Lemos discounted
the possibility that the PEER press release identified a genuine problem with her travel. In
response to the PEER press release, the CSB drafted a statement on Dr. Lemos's travel that was
sent to certain media outlets. The OIG included the facts and circumstances of the CSB response
within the scope of this investigation.

According to the PEER press release, during her first few months in office, Dr. Lemos:

Charged taxpayers $33,000 for travel, primarily from her home in San
Diego, California (where there are no CSB assets) to DC. Besides airfare,
expenses include hotel bills, including several nights at DC's Park Hyatt,
which describes itself as a "luxury boutique hotel." Such stays appear to
violate the rule against paying for lodging within 50 miles of the employee's
duty station. Notably, one trip was for her and to attend an

RNC-sponsored Trump Christmas party; [and she r]an up nearly $20,000 in
office renovations, including $9,000 in new furniture. This tab well exceeds
the $5,000 cap on office renovations for federal officials.

The CSB issued a response that stated in part:

The CSB adheres to all travel regulations and good practices. Her stays here
in D.C. are done so at the Government Rate and the hotel is within a mile
of the CSB's offices removing the need for an automobile rental. Travel
expenses for were not charged to the Government. Any

accusation to the contrary is poorly informed and inaccurate.

The Chairman is working tirelessly to release safety information and move
the CSB's safety mission forward.

GSA recommended that all moves be suspended during the middle of the
global pandemic, therefore she travels to and from D.C. to ensure her duties
as Chairman are carried out effectively, and include frequent use of several
virtual communications platforms.

The CSB response did not address PEER's allegation about office renovations.

As part of this investigation, the OIG asked Dr. Lemos and other CSB personnel about the
Board's response to the PEER press release. None of the witnesses interviewed by the OIG,
including Dr. Lemos, could point to any steps taken by the CSB to determine whether PEER's
statement about government travel rules was accurate. When she was asked about it in her
interview with the OIG, Dr. Lemos said, "We didn't believe their statement. ... [It] wasn't given

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

any credence because [PEER] didn't understand the situation." She was told by her staff, "[I]t's
half-truths ... as usual."

Dr. Lemos was not able to provide any information on steps taken to determine whether PEER'S
statement about the rule was accurate. "I asked my staff to look into it," she testified in her
interview. "I don't know what steps they took." Even during her December 2021 OIG interview,
Dr. Lemos could not say whether such a rule existed.

Moreover, the CSB response to the PEER press release contained statements that appear to be
misleading or inaccurate. For example, the CSB response stated, "The CSB adheres to all travel
regulations and good practices." As explained in the report of investigation, however, Dr. Lemos
did not adhere to the FTR in using Board funds for travel from her home to her duty station. In
her interview, Dr. Lemos could not say whether any steps were taken at the time to confirm the
accuracy of the CSB's statement.

The PEER press release should have alerted Dr. Lemos to the possibility that her travel to
Washington, D.C., was a potential violation of "the rule against paying for lodging within
50 miles of the employee's duty station." As Dr. Lemos's travel documents show, however, her
travel practices did not change significantly after the PEER press release. She continued to travel
at almost the same rate as she had in the previous year. When asked about it in her OIG
interview, Dr. Lemos said, "I didn't think I was doing anything wrong."

Dr. Lemos also testified that she did not know what steps were taken by the CSB to determine
whether PEER's statement about the $5,000 statutory cap on office renovations was accurate: "I
asked for those to be reviewed ... no one ever got back to me on the furniture." "In fact," she
said, "it wasn't until we heard from [the OIG] that I — I was aware of the 5,000 limitation. I
looked it up." When asked why more work was not done to get to the bottom of PEER's
allegations, Dr. Lemos said, "PEER comes up with a lot of things. Yes, in this case they
happened to be accurate."

this report to unauthorized persons is prohibited.

23-N-0020

-------
Whistleblower Protection

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The whistleblower protection coordinator's role
is to educate Agency employees about
prohibitions on retaliation and employees' rights
and remedies in cases of reprisal. For more
information, please visit the whistleblower
protection coordinator webpaae.

Contact us:

Congressional Inquiries: 01 G.CongressionalAffairs@epa.gov

Media Inquiries: OIG.PubiicAffairs@epa.gov
line EPA OIG Hotline: OIG Hotline@epa.gov

Web: epa.gov/oig

Follow us:

Twitter: @epaoig

(jnfr Linkedln: Hnkedin.com/company/epa-oig
YouTube: voutube.com/epaoig

[S3 Instagram: @epaJg.on.ig

www.epa.gov/oig

-------