03_app_b_Keowee-Toxaway_NRHP_Evaluation_FINAL_

KEOWEE- TOXAWAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FERC PROJECT NO. 2503
INITIAL STUDY REPORT
VOLUME III OF IX
APPENDIX B — NRHP EVALUATION
m
Duke
Prepared by:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
January 2013
© Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

v
NRHP Evaluation of the
Keowee- Toxaway
Hydroelectric Development
Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina
October 2012
Brockington
CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTING

NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP)
EVALUATION OF THE
KEOWEE- TOXAWAY
HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
OCONEE AND PICKENS COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA
(FERC #2503)
OCTOBER 2012
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by:
F. Patricia Stallings
Senior Historian
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Atlanta • Charleston • Savannah • Elizabethtown
Jacksonville • Pensacola • Seattle

Executive Summary
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is pursuing renewal of their Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) operating license for the 867.60 megawatt (MW) Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric
Project (FERC No. 2503). Originally licensed in 1966, the Project consists of two hydroelectric
developments, the Jocassee Development and the Keowee Development. The Project is located in the
Upstate area of South Carolina primarily in Oconee County and Pickens County with a small portion of
Lake Jocassee extending into Transylvania County, North Carolina. The Project's existing license expires
on August 31, 2016.
To support the relicensing, Brockington and Associates, Inc. ( Brockington) conducted a National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation of the hydroelectric structures associated with the Project.
The investigations, documented in this report, were designed to fulfill the obligations of Duke Energy
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.
In April 2012, personnel from Brockington completed an architectural survey of the Project
structures. The facilities at the Keowee Development (SCDAH Resource 373 -0155) include the 157.5
MW Keowee Hydroelectric Station, the Little River Dam, the Keowee Dam, an intake structure, four
saddle dikes, and the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) intake dike. Commercial operation of the Keowee
Development began in 1971. The facilities associated with the Jocassee Development (SCDAH Resource
446 -0156) include the 710.10 MW pumped storage station, Jocassee Dam, two intake structures, and two
saddle dikes. Commercial operation of the Jocassee Development began in 1973 when Units 1 and 2 were
placed into service; Units 3 and 4 were placed into service in 1975.
The Keowee and Jocassee Hydroelectric Developments were planned and constructed as part of a
comprehensive long -range multi- component power generation system (the Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project) that included thermoelectric and planned pumped- storage projects. The Keowee - Toxaway
Hydroelectric Project possess significance under Criterion A for its historical associations with the
Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project. However, the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project is not yet 50
years of age, and does not meet the threshold of "exceptional significance" to be considered eligible for
listing in the NRHP under Criterion Consideration G. Collectively, the two hydroelectric developments
will reach the 50 year age benchmark in 2022. The structures will likely meet the criteria for listing once
they reach 50 years of age. Duke Energy will assess the structures (e.g., those licensed under FERC No.
2503) again at that time to confirm this determination and also to record any changes made in the interim.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges individuals who contributed to the report's completion. At Duke
Energy, Mr. Brett Garrison provided coordination for the site visit, archival research, points of contact,
and other helpful information. Mr. Chris Hamrick assisted our personnel with research at the Duke
Energy Corporate Archives in Charlotte, North Carolina. At Brockington, Ms. Alicia Sullivan edited and
produced the document.
Brockington and Associates

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................................... ............................... ii
Listof Figures ............................................................................................................... ............................... iv
Listof Tables ............................ ...............................
.................. ............................... ix
1.0 Project Overview ..................................................................................................... ............................... 1
1.1 Project Operation and Effects .......................................................................... ............................... 2
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... ............................... 2
1.3 Historic Properties Analysis: Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places ..................... 3
1.4 Project Chronology ........................................................................................... ..............................4
2.0 Hydroelectric Overview and Historic Context ......................................................... ............................... 8
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... ............................... 8
2.2 Hydroelectric Development in the United States ............................................. ............................... 8
2.2.1 The Big Dam Era: Federal Hydroelectric Development and New Technologies ............ 11
2.3 Regional Variations ....................................................................................... ............................... 21
2.3.1 Hydroelectric Development in South Carolina ................................... .............................21
2.4 Power Development at Keowee - Toxaway: Controversy and Compromise .. ............................... 27
3.0 Architectural Evaluation: Hydroelectric Structures at Keowee- Toxaway ............. ............................... 70
3.1 Overview and Project Operation ..................................................................... ............................... 70
3.2 Keowee Development (SCDAH Resource 373 -0155) .................................... ............................... 70
3.2.1 Powerhouse ....................................................................................... ............................... 71
3.2.2 Turbines and Generating Equipment ................................................ ............................... 71
3.2.3 Dams and Impoundment ................................................................... ............................... 72
3.3 Jocassee Development (SCDAH Resource 446 -0156) ................................... ............................... 94
3.3.1 Powerhouse ....................................................................................... ............................... 94
3.3.2 Turbines and Generating Equipment ................................................ ............................... 95
3.3.3 Dams and Impoundment ................................................................... ............................... 95
4.0 NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project ..................... ............................... 114
4.1 NRHP Evaluation and Recommendations ..................................................... ............................... 114
ReferencesCited ........................................................................................................ ............................... 117
Appendix A
South Carolina State Survey Forms
Appendix B
Consultation
Appendix C
Resume of the Principal Investigator
Brackingtan and Associates
iii

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Project (FERC No. 2503) ...................... ............................... 5
Figure 1.2. Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project Structures on USGS topographical
map, Keowee Development ........................................................................................... ............................... 6
Figure 1.3. Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project Structures on USGS topographical
map, Jocassee Development .......................................................................................... ............................... 7
Figure 2.1. Adams Powerhouse (completed 1905), Niagara Falls, New York ............ ............................... 13
Figure 2.2. Catawba Powerhouse (completed 1904), India Hook, South Carolina .... ............................... 14
Figure 2.3. Semi - outdoor powerhouse design (from Taylor and Braymer 1917) ....... ............................... 15
Figure 2.4. Duke Energy's Great Falls- Dearborn Development, showing two phases of powerhouse
architecture. The Great Falls powerhouse (left) was completed in 1904; Dearborn (right) was completed
in1923 ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 16
Figure 2.5. Lake Blackshear Powerhouse (constructed 1930), Crisp County, Georgia ............................. 17
Figure 2.6. TVA's Guntersville Powerhouse (completed 1939), Marshall County, Alabama ................... 18
Figure 2.7. USACE Dale Hollow Powerhouse (completed 1948), Kentucky - Tennessee border .............. 19
Figure 2.8. USACE Cordell Hull Powerhouse, Lock, and Spillway (completed 1973), Smith County,
Tennessee..................................................................................................................... ............................... 20
Figure 2.9. Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station (completed 1965) ........................ ............................... 32
Figure 2.10 Duke Power service area with generating plants, 1960s .......................... ............................... 33
Figure 2.11 Artist's rendering of the proposed Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project ..... ............................... 34
Figure 2.12 Anticipated Keowee - Toxaway load generation ........................................ ............................... 35
Figure 2.13 Planned Keowee - Toxaway generation facilities ...................................... ............................... 36
Figure 2.14 The official groundbreaking on April 11, 1967 for the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project
included South Carolina Governor Robert McNair and Duke Power President W.B. McGuire
detonatinga dynamite blast ......................................................................................... ............................... 37
Figure 2.15 Construction of the Keowee - Toxaway Power Project, 1969, showing Keowee
impoundment in the background, Oconee Nuclear Station (left) and Keowee Hydroelectric
Development( right) ..................................................................................................... ............................... 38
Figure 2.16 Construction of the Keowee - Toxaway Power Project, 1969, Oconee Nuclear Station (left)
and Keowee Hydroelectric Development (right) ......................................................... ............................... 39
Brackingtan and Associates
iv

List Of Figures (continued)
Figure 2.17 Early construction photograph, showing the Little River Dam and re- routing of State
Route 130, September 1968. Historic Newry mill village can be seen center - right. Duke's
environmental protection measures included the installation of riprap on the shoreline near the mill
toprevent erosion ......................................................................................................... ............................... 40
Figure 2.18 Keowee Intake Structure, under construction in December 1968 ............ ............................... 41
Figure 2.19 Keowee Intake Tunnel, showing bifurcated sections leading to draft tubes, August 1968 ..... 42
Figure 2.20 Keowee Unit Installation, October 1970 ................................................. ............................... 43
Figure 2.21 Keowee Hydro Station, construction in progress as viewed from the tail race,
December1968 ........................................................................................................... ............................... 44
Figure 2.22 Keowee Hydro Station, construction in progress as viewed from the tail race,
December1969 ............................................................................................................ ............................... 45
Figure 2.23 Keowee Hydro Station, aerial view of framing, April 1970 .................... ............................... 46
Figure 2.24 Keowee Hydro Station, detail view of pre- fabricated panel siding near foundation,
May1970 .................................................................................................................... ............................... 47
Figure 2.25 Keowee Hydro Station, interior view, August 1970
48
Figure 2.26 Keowee Hydro Station Control Room, September 1970 ......................... ............................... 49
Figure 2.27 Keowee Hydro Station nearing completion in August 1970 ................... ............................... 50
Figure 2.28 Keowee Spillway and tainter gates, December 1968 .............................. ............................... 51
Figure 2.29 Impoundment of Lake Keowee was made possible by the construction of four saddle
dikes, buttressed on the lakeside by riprap (saddle dikes run parallel to the roadway in the center of
photograph................................................................................................................... ............................... 52
Figure 2.30 Aerial photograph of the completed Keowee Hydroelectric Development, October 1973 ..... 53
Figure 2.31 Construction of Jocassee Dam and Powerhouse, November 1970 ........... ............................... 54
Figure 2.32 Construction of Jocassee Powerhouse, October 1972, showing below -grade excavation....... 55
Figure 2.33 Jocassee Powerhouse from above, July 1972 ........................................... ............................... 56
Figure 2.34 Jocassee Powerhouse, as seen from the dam, December 1973 ................. ............................... 57
Figure 2.35 July 1975 photograph illustrating the "outdoor design" of the powerhouse with a full
lower pull ready for pump -back mode ......................................................................... ............................... 58
Brackingtan and Associates
V

List Of Figures (continued)
Figure 2.36 View of Jocassee Powerhouse interior, March 1972 ................................ ............................... 59
Figure 2.37 Jocassee Development control room, July 1973 ....................................... ............................... 60
Figure 2.38 View of completed Jocassee Powerhouse interior, July 1975 .................. ............................... 61
Figure 2.39 Steel framing for the Jocassee powerhouse entry, April 1972 ................. ............................... 62
Figure 2.40 Installation of Jocassee Unit 2, September 1973 ...................................... ............................... 63
Figure 2.41 Jocassee's intake structures were identical in design to Keowee. Photo January 1972 .......... 64
Figure 2.42 January 1972 photograph of one of two of Jocassee's concrete -lined intake tunnels,
showing bifurcation in the background ........................................................................ ............................... 65
Figure 2.43 June 1972 photograph of Jocassee Unit 4's draft tube, which was fed by one of the bifurcated
intaketunnels ............................................................................................................... ............................... 66
Figure 2.44 Construction of Jocassee's spillway, October 1973 ................................. ............................... 67
Figure 2.46 Aerial photograph of the completed Jocassee Development, February 1977, showing saddle
dikein the foreground .................................................................................................. ............................... 68
Figure 2.46 The Keowee - Toxawy Energy Project earned Duke Power the ASCE's 1975 Outstanding
Civil Engineering Achievement Award (Duke President Bill Lee far left, with other dignataries
(Oconee Nuclear Station in background) .................................................................... ............................... 69
Figure 3.1 Location of hydroelectric facilities at the Keowee Development ............... ............................... 74
Figure 3.2 Keowee Powerhouse, tailrace, and switchyards, as viewed from the crest of
KeoweeDam ................................................................................................................ ............................... 75
Figure 3.3 Keowee powerhouse exterior, facing northeast .......................................... ............................... 76
Figure 3.4 Keowee Powerhouse, siding detail, facing northeast ................................. ............................... 77
Figure 3.5 Keowee Powerhouse exterior, facing north ................................................ ............................... 78
Figure 3.6 Keowee Powerhouse exterior, facing east ..............
79
Figure 3.7 Keowee Powerhouse, east elevation, showing modified door .................... ............................... 80
Figure 3.8 Keowee interior, tops of generating units.......
Figure 3.9 Keowee interior, showing ribbon windows ....
............... 81
82
Figure 3.10 Keowee interior, showing cylindrical stairwell ........................................ ............................... 83
Brackingtan and Associates
Vi

List Of Figures (continued)
Figure 3.11 Keowee Powerhouse, showing concrete unit casing for Unit No. 2 ......... ............................... 84
Figure 3.12 Keowee Unit No. 2, showing wicket gates ............................................... ............................... 85
Figure 3.13 Keowee intake structure, facing north ... ...............................
86
Figure 3.14 Keowee Dam, with powerhouse on far right ............................................ ............................... 87
Figure 3.15 Crest of Keowee Dam, facing east from near Oconee Nuclear Station .... ............................... 88
Figure 3.16 Keowee Spillway equipment, facing east ................................................. ............................... 89
Figure 3.17 Keowee Spillway concrete gravity chute, facing south ............................ ............................... 90
Figure 3.18 Keowee Spillway, Tainter gates ............................................................... ............................... 91
Figure 3.19 Little River Dam, facing north, State Route 130 on the left side of photo .............................. 92
Figure 3.20 Downstream slope of Saddle Dike A, State Route 130 visible on the crest of
thedike ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 93
Figure 3.21 Hydroelectric facilities at Jocassee Development .................................... ............................... 97
Figure 3.22 Jocassee Development from atop main dam, facing south ....................... ............................... 98
Figure 3.23 Lake Jocassee, showing Bad Creek Project in background ...................... ............................... 99
Figure 3.24 Jocassee Powerhouse, entrance to the left, facing east ........................... ............................... 100
Figure 3.25 Jocassee Powerhouse entrance, facing north .......................................... ............................... 101
Figure 3.26 Jocassee Powerhouse, facing east, showing free - standing gantry crane ............................... 102
Figure 3.27 Jocassee Powerhouse, facing east, showing tops of generating units ..... ............................... 103
Figure 3.28 Jocassee Powerhouse substructure, south side at water discharge ......... ............................... 104
Figure 3.29 Jocassee Powerhouse, generating floor, looking east, Unit 2 concrete casing
onthe right ................................................................................................................. ............................... 105
Figure 3.30 Jocassee Unit No. 2 nameplate ............................................................... ............................... 106
Figure 3.31 Jocassee Unit No. 2 ................................................................................ ............................... 107
Figure 3.32 Jocassee Dam, downstream slope near powerhouse, facing north ......... ............................... 108
Figure 3.33 Lake side of Jocassee Dam, showing rip -rap facing. Photo looking west ............................. 109
Brackingtan and Associates
Vii

List Of Figures (continued)
Figure 3.34 Jocassee Development, intake structures, facing east ............................. ............................... 110
Figure 3.35 Jocassee Spillway chute, facing south .................................................... ............................... 1 1 l
Figure 3.36 Jocassee Spillway, tainter gates .............................................................. ............................... 112
Figure 3.37 Saddle Dike 1, in background of photograph, facing west ..................... ............................... 113
Brackingtan and Associates
Viii

List of Tables
Table 2.1 South Carolina Hydroelectric Plants (modified from Hay 1991) ..............................
Table 2.2 Anticipated Additions to Duke Power's Generating Capacity (1945 -1965)
Brackingtan and Associates
ix
................ 22
................ 28

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) owns and operates the 867.60 megawatt (MW) Keowee-
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2503) (Project), located in the Upstate area of South
Carolina. The Project, situated primarily in Oconee County and Pickens County with a small portion
extending into Transylvania County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1), consists of two hydroelectric
developments: the Jocassee Development and the Keowee Development. The Project operates under a
license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
The Project, originally licensed in 1966 by the FERC's predecessor agency, the Federal Power
Commission (FPC), was conceived, licensed, and developed as two hydroelectric facilities. Today, the
Project's primary purposes include hydroelectric generation to meet peak power loads and to support the
operation of Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS).
The current FERC license expires on August 31, 2016. Accordingly, Duke Energy is pursuing a
new license for the Project through the Commission's Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), as described in
18 CFR Part 5 of FERC's regulations. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as
amended), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.
The Commission's issuance of a license for the Project is considered an undertaking, and is therefore
subject to the provisions and regulations of Section 106. To fulfill the FERC's responsibilities under
Section 106, the licensee must complete cultural resources studies to (a) identify any existing adverse
Project effects on historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), and (b) to develop a plan for managing historic properties within the Project's Area of
Potential Effects (APE) throughout the term of the new license. In consultation with FERC, the Keowee-
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Work Group defined the APE as lands within the
Project boundary and lands affected by Project operations. This includes lands within the full pond
elevation of each reservoir, Project recreational access areas, the islands within the reservoirs, and
additional lands associated with each powerhouse and dam complex.
Project facilities such as dams and powerhouses also have the potential to be considered historic
properties. Because project facilities may be affected by general maintenance and repair activities
required for Project operation, the purpose of this NRHP evaluation study is to determine if the Project
structures are historic properties and, if so, what features (i.e., "character- defining features ") contribute to
their eligibility. The methodology of the current study was tailored to meet these goals.
The specific goal of this study was to conduct an NRHP evaluation of Project - related
architectural and engineering components located within the APE. The Keowee Development facilities
include the 157.5 MW Keowee hydroelectric station, a gated concrete spillway, an intake structure, the
Little River Dam, the Keowee Dam, four saddle dikes, the ONS intake dike, and switchyard. Commercial
operation of the Keowee Development began in 1971. The facilities associated with the Jocassee
Development include the 7 10. 10 MW pumped storage station, a gated spillway, two intake structures,
Jocassee Dam, two saddle dikes, and switchyard. Commercial operation of the Jocassee Development
began in 1973 when Units 1 and 2 came online; Units 3 and 4 came online in 1975.
Brockington and Associates
I

1.1 Project Operation and Effects
The Keowee and Jocassee Developments were planned, constructed, and continue to operate as part of a
larger generating project, which is identified for clarity in this report as the "Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project." Duke Energy operates the FERC - licensed Project primarily for peak hydroelectric generation
and to support the operation of Oconee Nuclear Station. The Keowee Hydro Station generates power with
two conventional units. The Jocassee Hydro Station generates with four reversible turbine /pumps. Lake
Keowee serves as the lower reservoir for the Jocassee pumped- storage operations. Major changes to the
Project included uprating the four reversible units at Jocassee (two units in 2007; two units in 2011) for
an additional 100 MW of installed capacity. No new facilities or changes are being proposed at this time.
During the early planning and design of the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project in the early 1960s,
Duke Energy anticipated that several additional generating stations, either pumped storage hydropower or
thermoelectric, could be added to the Energy Project as electrical demands grew in the utility's service
area. Only the Oconee Nuclear Station (completed in 1974; licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) and the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project (1991; FERC Project No. 2740) have been
constructed to date.
1.2 Methodology
Prior to visiting the Project site, Brockington conducted a records review designed to identify whether any
of the project facilities had been previously evaluated. This included a search of the ArchSite database
sponsored by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) and the South
Carolina Department of Archives and History ( SCDAH), which includes a listing of previously recorded
architectural properties as well as historic properties (sites, buildings, structures, objects, districts, or
landscapes listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP at SCDAH. This research determined that neither
the Keowee nor Jocassee Developments have been previously evaluated for the NRHP or recorded as part
of another survey.
Brockington also reviewed the listing of historic contexts available on the SCDAH website to
ascertain whether previous research contained information relevant to the evaluation of the Keowee -
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project facilities. To further assist in the development of the historic context and
Project facilities assessment, we reviewed contemporary newspaper articles on the planning, construction,
and operation of the facilities. The Senior Historian also reviewed historical documents (including
photographs, monographs, and engineering drawings) at the Duke Energy Corporate Archives in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
From April 4 -5, 2012, Brockington personnel conducted an intensive architectural survey of the
hydroelectric structures at both the Keowee and Jocassee hydroelectric developments. This survey
included inspections of the interiors and exteriors of the two powerhouse facilities, and visual survey of
the dams, saddle dikes, and ancillary power generating equipment. Photographs of the hydroelectric
structures were taken in consideration of security concerns and have been vetted through Duke Energy
security personnel.
This NRHP Evaluation Report for the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project provides a
detailed summary of the archival research, descriptions of the hydroelectric structures, a detailed historic
context for hydroelectric development at both the national and state levels, and provides an NRHP
evaluation of the Project facilities. A South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Historic Resource
Form was completed for each facility and copies of the forms have been provided in Appendix A.
Original form copies have been provided to SCDAH.
Brockington and Associates
2

1.3 Historic Properties Analysis: Eligibility to the National Register of Historic
Places
Eligibility to the NRHP is based upon whether or not a property posseses significance under specific
criteria. The NRHP criteria for evaluation are set forth at 36 CFR 60.4, as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,
and
a. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
b. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
d. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
A property may be eligible for the NRHP under one or more of these criteria. Criteria A, B, and C
are most frequently applied to historic buildings, structures, objects, non - archaeological sites (e.g.,
battlefields, natural features, designed landscapes, or cemeteries), or districts. The eligibility of
archaeological sites is most frequently considered with respect to Criterion D. A general guide of 50 years
of age is employed to define "historic" in the NRHP evaluation process. That is, all properties greater
than 50 years of age may be considered for evaluation. However, more recent properties may be
considered for evaluation. According to Sherfy and Luce (1998: 1), the passage of time is necessary in
order to apply the adjective historic and to ensure the adequate perspective, but properties less than fifty
years of age may be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP if they rise to a level of "exceptional
significance," defined as Criteria Consideration G. To determine whether properties qualify as
exceptionally significant, Sherfy and Luce (1998) emphasize the importance of a historic context.
Additionally, in order to qualify as exceptionally significant, the resource must also be eligible for
listing under one of the four criteria (A, B, C, or D) and possess integrity ( Sherfy and Luce 1998: 25).
Typically, a property can possess significance at the local, state, or national level depending on its
historical associations and applicable historic context, as explained in National Register Bulletin 15: How
to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Savage and Pope 1998). Accordingly, because the
Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project has yet to reach the fifty -year benchmark, this report evaluates
the Project under Criteria Consideration G. Chapter 2 provides a detailed historic context of the Keowee-
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project.
Brockington and Associates
3

1.4 Project Chronology
This section presents a summary of the milestone events associated with the construction and operation of
the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project.
1916 Duke Power expresses interest in the Oconee and Pickens Counties area for possible
hydroelectric development and begins purchasing small tracts of land
1960 -1965 Duke Power's Design Engineering Department develops plans for a multi - purpose energy
project in Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, which includes two hydroelectric
developments (Keowee and Jocassee)
1965 January: Duke Power files an application with the FPC for a license to build the Keowee -
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project
June: Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall files a motion of intervention with the FPC to prevent
Duke Power's construction of the Project on grounds that it would compete with the Federal
Government's Trotter Shoals hydroelectric project on the Savannah River
1966 FPC issues Duke Power a license to operate the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project
1967 Construction begins on the Keowee Hydroelectric Development
Construction permits received for Oconee Nuclear Station
1968 Construction begins on the Jocassee Hydroelectric Development
Duke Power enters into a reservoir filling agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers and
the Southeastern Power Administration
1971 Keowee Hydroelectric Development completed and commercial operation begins
1972 Jocassee Hydroelectric Development completed
Duke Power wins Edison Award for the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project
1973 Commercial operation of Jocassee Units 1 and 2 begins
Commercial operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station begins, and uses Keowee to support
operation of the nuclear plant and Lake Keowee as its cooling pond
1991 The Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2740) is completed, and uses Lake Jocassee
as its lower (pumping) reservoir
2007 Turbine runners for Jocassee Units 3 and 4 are replaced to add 50.5 MW to the plant's capacity
2011 Turbine runners for Jocassee Units 1 and 2 are replaced for an additional 50.5 MW
Duke Energy submits its Notice of Intent to relicense the Project with the FERC
2016 August 31: FERC license issued in 1966 for Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project expires
Brockington and Associates
4

Cashiers Sapphire
Gorges
rG, State C ore jar
Park Head
281 State Pei
Table P,
Bad Creek Reservoir •'
II
(non - project)
Lake S❑11 et
I.4 Jocassee
/Jocassee Dam, Tailrace
/ and Spillway Area
o�
133
Q Crow0
C
ylJ
Salem c
Tamassee
Pickens
tt
Pic QnS Hwy
N 0 2 4 Miles
I i I
0 3 6 Kilometers
Keowee- Toxaway Relicensing
FERC Project no. 2503
Project Location Map
Lake �t�.3%0
Keowee �ht
183 Six Mile
Keowee Dam
and Tailrace Area 1;7 Li
Oconee Nuclear
Station {non - project)
Norris
C entral
\ Little River Dam
I >
t8 -
Sources: Esri- feLrrVme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, USES, Intermap, iPC,
Sens 7 �NRCAN, Esh Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand)
Figure 1.1 Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Project (FERC No. 2503).
Brockington and Associates
5

Liz \�'. '✓ �� k ti IV�~� '� - _._"l
�r
f}
I
Area of Potential Effects
f > and FERC Project Boundary s ti r
Ze
- r r
rh -
r.
d�_Ir►�" � �'� Keowee dam /� � -�, ; '
Spillwa _•� �fy,
J o Powerhouse
7
,.
Switchyard
Oconee Nucl r `z�U `"' �•=
Station [non- project)( . ��� �•
AconeieNuclear �.
Station Intake Dike
Saddle Dike D
Saddle Dike{
41
3 J i✓ Saddle Dike 6
N 0 1 2 Mil - j
� `�i 3ti �� a���'4t• Saddl �ke A, es
0 1.5 3 Kilometers -
Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing —
Little River-Dam. FERC Project no. 2503
Project Location Map
o
� <t1„ �
National Geographic Society. icubed•
Figure 1.2 Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Project Structures on USGS topographical map, Keowee Development
(FERC No. 2503).
Brockington and Associates
6

Wiatl -+ - •..fir �9 - -r' i Y,
. k�K sus
CO
CO
"sic 0
A f,AfilU ":'.AL. FOFESi 1 Jr r
v i
�r ti o
1-
Lr ' o£ Lake %Et' C4a IntakeStr�u/Ctures
Jocassee Power- Tunnelsj�i''�'
Sw hard
ESadd11 ike #2 '. '� �,.•��, /., L'
Powerhouse
7Saddle Dike i1
Spillway
0414
i
,s 4'LY
-
N 0 1 2 1MilL5
s� r 1 ti 7
0 1.5 3 Kilometers.
Keowee- Toxaway Relicensing
FERC Project no. 2503
t 0 I G' Project Location Map
` '� �.
r
. Area of Potential Effects ` Uoa
3 and FERC Project Boundary
tr 6' dg tyG O, Nation i Geographic Soci ty. i -cub d
Figure 1.3 Location of the Keowee - Toxaway Project Structures on USGS topographical map, Jocassee Development
(FERC No. 2503).
Brockington and Associates
7

2.0 Hydroelectric Overview and Historic Context
2.1 Introduction
Hydroelectric dams and powerhouses in the United States are enduring, tangible products of the historical
development and technological refinement of water - generated electricity. Along with facilities that used
steam to produce electricity, early hydroelectric projects played an instrumental role in the process by
which homes, businesses, and industries were modernized with the now - ubiquitous commodity of electric
energy. The history of hydroelectricity documents an ingenious merging of traditional hydromechanical
technology with the evolving nineteenth - century technology of electric lighting and power. This process
was followed by development of transmission systems capable of safely and efficiently distributing this
new energy source to distant markets. The post -World War I history of hydroelectricity fits into the larger
context of the emergence of electric utilities as powerful business institutions, overseeing complex,
interconnected systems of electricity from diverse power sources. The post -World War II history of
hydroelectricity represents a time of increasing federal hydropower production and the emergence of
hydroelectricity as primarily a peaking source for investor -owned utilities.
The historical study of hydroelectric facilities is unusual compared to many other fields within
engineering history, where ongoing technological evolution often brought about widespread destruction
or major alteration of original facilities. As historian Duncan Hay noted (1991:134), "Hydroelectric plants
are remarkably durable; few other classes of industrial facilities have such a large portion of their number
in production after more than half a century." Many surviving examples have changed little in appearance
or design (aside from the effects of routine maintenance), because industry advancements generally have
not been dramatic enough to warrant the retirement of still operational equipment, powerhouses, and
dams.
2.2 Hydroelectric Development in the United States
In his two - volume Hydroelectric Development in the United States, 1880 -1940, Hay identifies and
describes three broad periods in the evolution of hydroelectricity in the United States prior to World War
II: a pioneering period (1880 to 1895); a period of innovation and experimentation (1895 to 1915); and a
period of standardization (1920 to 1930) (Hay 1991). Hay provides no explanation for the five -year gap
between the end of the second period and the beginning of the third; however, with United States
participation in World War I, changes in hydroelectricity were related to production scale (an increase of
two million horsepower in generating capacity between 1917 and 1919) and to increased
interconnectedness of systems. During the mid - twentieth century, the majority of hydroelectric facilities
constructed across the United States were initiated by the federal government as part of broader flood
control and navigation systems within river basins. Private utilities continued to invest in hydropower, but
at a much smaller rate. Instead, for electrical generation, private utilities began looking to high- capacity
steam plants, nuclear power, and, more recently, natural gas facilities. A summary of Hay's
developmental history, updated to reflect trends of the mid -to late- twentieth century, is presented below.
The pioneering phase of hydroelectric development in America technically began in 1880, when
Michigan's Grand Rapids Electric Light and Power Company first connected a dynamo to a water turbine
for the purpose of powering arc lights. Hydroelectricity had its antecedents, however, in a long -
established tradition of hydromechanical power production. Throughout the nineteenth century, falling
water supplied a significant part of America's industrial power, and after 1850 water turbines designed by
innovators such as James B. Francis began to overshadow traditional open waterwheels. Though electrical
engineering was a much newer science by comparison, by the late 1870s, rudimentary arc lighting
systems were joined by incandescent systems developed by Thomas Edison and others.
Brockington and Associates
8

Accordingly, the necessary components for hydroelectric development were in place by the onset
of the 1880s. The number of hydroelectric plants generating direct current for local electric light systems
grew rapidly during the decade. According to an August 21, 1886 article in Electrical World, one such
plant had even been established in Columbus, Georgia (Hay 1991).
Long distance transmission remained the biggest obstacle to industry expansion, because both arc
and incandescent lighting operations were limited by the typically high line losses associated with low
voltage direct current. The Westinghouse Electric Company, formed in 1886 by George Westinghouse,
overcame this limitation with the refinement of high voltage alternating current systems and transformers.
Westinghouse's new system proved itself when matched with the challenge of developing Niagara Falls,
whose 180 -foot drop would produce far more energy than could be used locally. Detractors maintained
that alternating current was inherently unsafe and thus there was no effective way to market and distribute
the vast power of sites such as Niagara. Despite opposition, Westinghouse successfully devised a
"universal" distribution system of transmission lines and transformers that could match Niagara's output
with the individual voltage needs of distant consumers. In August 1895, generators were started up at
Niagara Falls, the largest hydroelectric plant in the world at the time. Niagara Falls and its contemporaries
marked a turning point in hydroelectric development by (1) demonstrating the economic viability of
hydroelectric development coupled with long distance power transmission; (2) establishing standards for
the industry; and (3) illustrating that hydroelectricity demanded significant changes in hardware and
attitudes toward the use of water power in conjunction with electrical distribution. Powerhouses of the
pioneering phase ranged from small shacks to imposing and elaborate structures (Figure 2.1) designed to
emphasize the power of the corporation and the growing industry (Hay 1991).
A quarter century of innovation and experimentation followed developments at Niagara Falls in
1895, as the trends that began there were elaborated and modified at hundreds of waterpower sites
throughout the United States. Engineers borrowed freely from new as well as existing technologies,
tailoring their creations to individual site conditions by combining electrical, hydraulic, mechanical, and
civil features in innovative ways. Electrical transmission systems improved, allowing the power of remote
or inaccessible sites to be harnessed. Innovations in dam construction, both for hydroelectric and other
purposes, focused on designs that were stronger or used smaller quantities of materials, such as Nils
Ambursen's hollow -core dams of reinforced concrete slabs and buttresses.
Design improvements also flourished for the wide range of devices used to retain, direct, and
control water, including flashboards, intake apparatuses, canals and flumes, diversion tunnels, pressure
conduits, penstocks, surge tanks, and penstock valves. Horizontal impulse waterwheels were increasingly
supplanted by an assortment of reaction turbines tailored to maximize the energy that could be extracted
from the available head, or the distance that the water falls before hitting the turbines. In 1912, Professor
Albert Kingsbury introduced large capacity thrust bearings from which reaction turbines could be
suspended vertically, eliminating the need to use less efficient, horizontal mountings of turbines and
generators. Few horizontal high head reaction turbines were installed after World War 1, and by 1920,
vertical single - runner Francis turbines were being installed even at high head facilities. Oil hydraulic
governors introduced by the Lombard and Woodward companies began to supplant mechanical
governors, and scroll cases and flared draft tubes improved the efficiency of water flow into and out of
the turbines.
Contemporary textbook authors of waterpower development advocated new powerhouses to be
more utilitarian in design than their predecessors. With the exception of some of the larger hydroelectric
projects, powerhouses of this period began to lack architectural embellishments (Figure 2.2). Most
designs used a brick exterior over a steel frame or reinforced concrete walls; roofs were pitched lower and
even flattened for a more parapetted effect. Powerhouses of this period were smaller as well, as the
Brockington and Associates
9

growing use of outdoor transformers and switchyards after 1913 reduced the amount of interior space
needed. In addition, designs routinely accommodated space in the foundation for future generating units.
By the end of this period, some designs truncated the traditional powerhouse structure. The new
abbreviated or semi - outdoor powerhouse (Figure 2.3) housed only the control panel, exciters, and repair
shops in a smaller, traditional building. Metal covers protected generators, which were serviced by a free-
standing gantry crane anchored to a mass concrete substructure; the cranes accessed the generating units
via hatches in the powerhouse roof (Hay 1991).
While innovation in hydroelectric development continued into the 1920s, standardization
increasingly characterized the design of many plants built after World War I. According to Hay
(1991:95), "a larger number of hydroelectric plants came on line or were significantly upgraded between
1920 and 1930 than during any decade before or since." Equipment and designs tended to vary only in
response to topographical and regional conditions. Most new lower and medium head plants were driven
by vertical single - runner Francis turbines supported by a Kingsbury -type thrust bearing, a combination
that increasingly came to be used for high head applications as well. Speed was generally controlled by
hydraulic governors (usually Woodward designs) that activated wicket gates to control water flow, and
most turbines received water through some type of scroll case. In a continuation of the architectural trends
of the previous period powerhouses tended to be brick and steel structures with steel- framed windows
(either rectangular or arch - topped) and primarily had flat roofs, which allowed maximum clearance for
overhead cranes while minimizing materials for walls and roofs. In general, development in the 1920s
focused more on the integration of hydroelectric plants into larger systems than on their appearance or
equipment (Figures 2.4 -2.5).
A key aspect of hydroelectricity's third phase was the way in which standardized plant designs
and technology reflected the evolution of both the industry of hydroelectricity and the institution of
utilities. Technological advances do not flourish independently; they must be supported, applied, and
distributed by systems that develop around them. The standardization of hydroelectricity by the 1920s can
be traced to a number of factors, including the cumulative experience of preceding developments, the
attention of national and regional technical periodicals, the growing influence of consulting management
and engineering firms, the availability of capital through holding companies, and the consolidation of
local utilities into regional concerns. Of these trends, the emergence of regional utilities dramatically
affected development in general, as interconnected power systems brought growth and modernization to
rural as well as urban areas.
Though hydroelectric operations continued to function after the standardization period of the
1920s, the industry changed considerably around 1930 in response to several conditions. The efficiency
and economy of thermal (steam) power improved steadily during the 1910s and 1920s, causing power
company managers to re- evaluate the role of hydro within their total systems. Hydroelectric facilities,
which could be brought "online" almost instantaneously, gradually emerged as producers of peak load
power, while new, large steam plants took over most base load production. The limited remaining stock
of developable hydropower sites spurred the trend towards larger -scale projects, as engineers of the 1930s
developed enormous dams and powerhouses to conquer the highly challenging sites that remained,
particularly in the western United States. The stock market panic of 1929 and the ensuing Great
Depression brought cataclysmic changes to the electric utility industry and the nation that it served.
Reduced demands for power in a Depression -era economy diminished incentives to acquire and develop
new hydropower sites, and hydroelectric development by investor -owned utilities came to a virtual
standstill during the 1930s. The 1930s began, for utility companies, a period of heightened federal
regulation and intervention that brought more changes in organization and operation than in technology
and development.
Brockington and Associates
10

2.2.1 The Big Dam Era: Federal Hydroelectric Development and New Technologies (1930 - present)
While the 1930s had a stagnating effect on the evolution of non - governmental hydroelectric development,
the agendas and resources of Roosevelt's New Deal fostered a vastly different era of hydroelectric
development carried out by the federal government. In the west and the Tennessee Valley, federal
agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Tennessee Valley Authority ([TVA]
formed by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933), and the Bonneville Power Administration
launched into massive dam construction programs designed to provide flood control, irrigation, public
works, and regional economic development in addition to hydroelectric power. The federal projects,
"which were consciously different from their power- company predecessors in terms of appearance, scale,
and operation," represent the majority of the hydroelectric construction that occurred from the 1930s
through the energy crisis of the 1970s (Hay 1991). Powerhouse designs trended toward streamlined
architecture, and were largely monolithic concrete structures (Figures 2.6 -2.7), many of which featured
minimized Art Deco features. According to Hay, "Federal architects and designers sheathed
hydroelectricity in entirely modern clothes, as if to separate it from its past" (Hay 1991: 132). Another
key design trend for powerhouses from the mid -to -late twentieth century included a decrease in window
size. Earlier buildings typically included large windows extending from the entire height of the generator
floor for light and ventilation. Modern heating and air systems allowed for much smaller windows. Some
designs, in a continuation of the semi - outdoor powerhouse type, eliminated the powerhouse altogether,
and placed the generating units in weatherproof cubicles recessed entirely within the powerhouse
foundation (USACE 1985: 2.31).
In the southeastern United States, in addition to the TVA, the Flood Control Acts of 1938 and
1944 authorized numerous multi - purpose projects across the region, although construction on most
projects was delayed until after World War II. Constructed by the USACE, the projects were located in
the basins of the Cumberland, Roanoke, Savannah, Alabama, and Chattahoochee rivers. The projects
were authorized for a variety of purposes including navigation, flood control, water quality, recreation,
and water supply (Figure 2.8). Many of the projects also included a hydropower component, with the
electricity marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), then part of the U.S. Department
of the Interior and now part of the U.S. Department of Energy, to area municipalities and rural electric
cooperatives, known as "preference customers" (Brockington 2012; Norwood 1990).
When the advent of World War II and the subsequent postwar boom brought increased demands
for electric energy, investor -owned utility companies responded to market needs by diversifying their
energy portfolio. They did so by constructing large -scale steam (coal - fired) stations, nuclear plants, and
later, natural gas facilities. In addition, because of the limited number of suitable sites combined with the
large environmental footprint required for hydropower, construction of hydroelectric facilities by
investor -owned utilities declined in the late twentieth century. Hydropower continued to play a critical
role in the electric power supply, however, in that it provided peaking power, was more cost - efficient to
put online (or take offline) as required by electrical demands, and proved a viable method of balancing
thermal base loads.
Another important component of the mid -to -late twentieth century includes the technological
advancements that led to a greater emphasis on pumped- storage hydroelectric development. Pumped -
storage hydro, or the concept of using a lower reservoir to pump water into an upper reservoir for energy
storage, was not a new industry design. In 1908, the world's first pumped- storage facility was completed
in Germany, and other small -scale examples were present throughout Europe. The Connecticut Light and
Power Company completed the first commercially operable pumped- storage hydroelectric facility in the
United States in 1929 near New Milford, Connecticut. Called the Rocky River Plant, it was constructed to
stabilize firm energy capacity among a series of hydroelectric plants on the Housatonic River, which had
variable season inflows. The station used two 54 -inch centrifugal pumps to transfer water into the Lake
Brockington and Associates
11

Candlewood reservoir, which fed the conventional hydro units (American Society of Mechanical
Enigneers [AMSE] 1997: 69 -71).
Having separate pumps for pumped- storage developments remained standard practice until
international engineers demonstrated the viability of a reversible pump /turbine during the 1940s.
Reversible turbines were not integrated into hydroelectric designs in the United States until the mid -
1950s. The first was a small 8.5 MW reversible unit installed in 1954 at the Flatiron Project, an integrated
component of the larger Colorado -Big Thompson water diversion project operated by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. Just two years later, the TVA installed a 60 MW Allis Chalmers reversible pump /turbine
unit at Hiawassee Dam in North Carolina, which was the first use of the design for significant power
generation (ASME 1997: 74 -75). Another major milestone for pumped- storage development was reached
in 1963 at the Taum Sauk project in Missouri. Operating under 764 feet of head and 408 MW of
reversible capacity, it dramatically improved upon previous turbine designs. Because the amount of
power generated at hydroelectric is directly proportional to the head, and with penstocks typically
representing a small percentage of total project costs, these improved turbine designs were critical in
proving the economic efficiency of high -head pumped- storage projects (Dames and Moore 1981: 2.9).
In addition to the proven viability of reversible turbines, the post -World War II economic growth
"reshaped the electric demand pattern by increasing the peak -to- base -load ratio and creating more distinct
seasonal peaks for electricity" (Dames and Moore 1981: 2.6 -2.8). During the early twentieth century,
utilities relied heavily on electricity generated by conventional hydroelectric power plants as well as
conventional steam units. By the mid - twentieth century, as average electric loads doubled each decade,
utilities began developing a more diverse energy portfolio to account for base and peak load variability.
Technological advancements in steam -power generation and the introduction of nuclear power helped
stabilize the increasing demands for base load capacity. However, using those types of generation for
peak power production could potentially lead to mechanical stresses in the units. Utilities, therefore,
began looking to pumped- storage facilities for addressing peak demands and typically designed the
projects to operate in conjunction with other generation facilities. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a sharp
increase in the number of proposed pumped storage developments across the country (Dames and Moore
1981: 2.7 -2.9).
By the 1970s, the United States had entered into an energy crisis. Overall consumption had begun
to decrease and inflation hit the marketplace. New environmental legislation took its toll on large -scale
energy projects, including hydropower, and new regulations impacted utilities' generation costs. During
this time, the federal government entered the final stages of completing its multi - purpose dam projects
and investor -owned utilities constructed a minimal number of hydroelectric facilities. Nationwide,
hydropower represented an increasingly smaller percentage of total power generation, dropping to below
ten percent by the 1990s. In the modern period, concerns over climate change have placed a new
emphasis on renewable energy development, including solar, wind, and geothermal, as well as
hydropower. With new renewable energy demands, hydropower continues to play an important role as a
source of peaking power as investors look to new innovative methods of capitalizing on existing dam
infrastructure or low -head hydro developments.
Brockington and Associates
12

Figure 2.1 Adams Powerhouse (completed 1905), Niagara Falls, New York.
Brockington and Associates
13

f
I
.......
Figure 2.2. Catawba Powerhouse (completed 1904), India Hook, South Carolina.
Brockington and Associates
14

Figure 2.3. Semi - outdoor powerhouse design (from Taylor and Braymer 1917).
Brockington and Associates
15

Figure 2.4. Duke Energy's Great Falls- Dearborn Development, showing two phases of powerhouse architecture. The Great Falls
powerhouse (left) was completed in 1904; Dearborn (right) was completed in 1923.
Brockington and Associates

Figure 2.5. Lake Blackshear (Warwick) Powerhouse (constructed 1930), Crisp County, Georgia.
Brockington and Associates
17

Figure 2.6. TVA's Guntersville Powerhouse (completed 1939), Marshall County, Alabama.
Brockington and Associates

'M
The Powerhouse houses twu I.SjO}©- IW Cranera.tore with an
Estimated Annual Energy CRztPut of 120,000 iliowatt JIDUrs.
Diash*ri] 3 e District Core o3
B EnEineare
Figure 2.7. USACE Dale Hollow Powerhouse (completed 1948), Kentucky- Tennessee border.
Brockington and Associates
19

Figure 2.8. USACE Cordell Hull Powerhouse, Lock, and Spillway (completed 1973), Smith County, Tennessee.
Brockington and Associates
20

2.3 Regional Variations
As with most aspects of history, regional variations of national trends in hydroelectric development are
the product of factors such as topography, settlement patterns, natural resources, transportation systems,
and market forces. In outlining three basic phases in pre -World War II American hydroelectric
development, Hay (1991) highlights fundamental distinctions between the East and the West based on
differences in terrain and market needs. Regional differences appear to be less distinct in subsequent
decades, as the development of utilities nationwide began to follow more standardized patterns of
consolidated operations and ownership, interconnected supply systems, and diversified power sources.
Distinctions between the East and the West fostered significant regional differences in the early
decades of hydroelectric development; the following examples are summarized from Hay's observations.
During hydroelectricity's pioneering phase, industrial waterpower sites in the eastern U.S. and western
U.S. had relatively low heads but ample stream flows and immediate markets for electric power among
urbanized areas. By comparison, waterpower sites with heads of several hundred to more than a thousand
feet were available in the West but were generally located far from population centers. Accordingly,
innovation and experimentation in the West focused on developing long distance, high- voltage
transmission systems, while the East turned its attention to hydraulic systems that would maximize the
typically lower heads and higher flows of eastern rivers. Tunnels to carry water through ridges or between
drainage basins became more common in the West, particularly for projects in the mountain ranges of the
Sierras, Cascades, and Rockies. While western engineers proceeded with modifications to traditional
high - velocity impulse wheels, eastern designers were forced to develop and refine the technology of the
more versatile reaction turbine. By the time hydroelectric development entered a period of standardization
after World War I, eastern-style configurations of vertical, single runner Francis -type reaction turbines
were common in most new low and medium head plants and were introduced in high head applications as
well. The trend toward consolidation and interconnection among utilities and the subsequent rise of
federal involvement affected the hydroelectric industry in both the East and the West. Table 2.1
summarizes information regarding the hydroelectric plants operating in South Carolina today.
2.3.1 Hydroelectric Development in South Carolina
National developments in hydroelectric power arrived at the same time as the "New South" movement
came to prominence. Urban and commercial leaders throughout the South touted the region's promise in
the new world of industrial development and international commerce, citing, among other benefits, the
region's natural resources. Perhaps the most visible result of the New South boosterism was the cotton
mill boom. The number, size, and sophistication of southern cotton mills grew rapidly in the 1880s and
1890s. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia led the South's cotton mill expansion, along with the
more general industrial development in the region, and it was not mere chance that these states also led
the South in hydroelectric developments.
Brockington and Associates
21

Table 2.1 South Carolina Hydroelectric Plants (modified from Hay 1991).
Start-up /Oldest
Unot
Plant Name
Owner /Operator
Water Source
Kilowatt Capacity
1896
Columbia Hydro
SCE &G
Broad River
10,600
1905
Neal Shoals
SCE &G
Broad River
3,900
1905
Saluda (Greenville)
Northbrook
Saluda River
2,400
1905
Great Falls
Duke Energy
Catawba River
24,000
1906
Holliday's Bridge
Northbrook
Saluda River
3,500
1908
Gaston Shoals
Duke Energy
Broad River
9,140
1909
Boyds Mill
Northbrook
Reedy Creek
960
1909
Rocky Creek
Duke Energy
Catawba River
28,000
1910
Ninety -Nine Islands
Duke Energy
Broad River
20,000
1914
Parr Hydro
SCE &G
Broad River
14,900
1916
Fishing Creek
Duke Energy
Catawba River
36,720
1919
Wateree
Duke Energy
Wateree River
82,000
1921
Lockhart
Lockhart Power
Broad River
12,300
1923
Dearborn
Duke Energy
Catawba River
45,000
1925
Wylie
Duke Energy
Catawba River
69,000
1926
Cedar Creek
Duke Energy
Catawba River
45,000
1930
Saluda Hydro
SCE &G
Saluda River
197,500
1935
Abbeville
Abbeville Water and
Electric
Rocky River
2,800
1940
Buzzard Roost
Greenwood County
Saluda River
15,000
1942
Pinopolis (now Jeffries)
Santee - Cooper
Santee and Cooper
Rivers
134,535
1952
J. Strom Thurmond
USACE
Savannah River
380,000
1962
Hartwell
USACE
Savannah River
264,000
1971
Keowee
Duke Energy
Keowee and Little
Rivers
157,500
1973
Jocassee (pumped storage)
Duke Energy
Keowee River
710,100
1978
Fairfield (pumped storage)
SCE &G
Broad River
512,000
1986
R.B. Russell (four
conventional; four pump units
USACE
Savannah River
600,000
1991
Bad Creek (pumped storage)
Duke Energy
Bad Creek
1,065,000
Brockington and Associates
22

Like other areas of the eastern United States, commercial and industrial development in South
Carolina benefitted from a good network of rivers with ample stream flows, particularly near the fall line.
The entire state was drained by a vast number of tributaries feeding into the three main river systems of
the state, the Savannah, the Pee Dee, and the Santee. Rivers at or above the fall line, however, where the
rushing mountain streams and rivers settled down and drained toward the Lowcountry through the tidal
plain, provided the most ready and easily accessible source of power for textile mills. More than
topographical and technological conditions influenced the development of hydroelectric power in South
Carolina, however. Political and legal issues also shaped the pattern of growth in the state, as did
questions of urban development and economic consolidation. The history of hydroelectric power is
closely intertwined with the attempts by economic and political leaders and entrepreneurs in both North
and South Carolina to bring the respective states into national commercial and manufacturing currents.
Hydroelectric power was new in the 1880s and 1890s, but the use of water power for industrial
purposes was common in the South Carolina upcountry throughout the nineteenth century. Indeed, a
handful of entrepreneurs in Statesburg, Sumter District, established a manufactory in the early 1790s that
included two 84- spindle spinning machines along with machines for ginning, carding, and slugging; all of
this was powered by water. The enterprise proved unsuccessful, and in the late 1790s, the machinery was
sold to investors in North Carolina (Savage 1973: 4 -6). The hydroelectric powerhouses of the late
nineteenth and twentieth centuries drew upon earlier developments in hydromechanical facilities in South
Carolina's upcountry. Lowcountry planters of the early nineteenth century built rice mills for their
plantations using the power of the tides to turn their water wheels (Chaplin 1993: 254 -259). Although
sufficient for these enterprises, the tidal rivers and streams could not generate the head, or difference in
elevation, that could power the new turbines later in the century.
Beginning in the 1820s and 1830s, however, turbines came into use. Rather than dropping water
into a bucket, as in a water wheel, turbines forced the water into an enclosed space under pressure. Water
forced through a race began to rotate before entering the water wheel within the turbine; this allowed the
water wheel to capture the water's energy more efficiently in situations of low head. Many of South
Carolina's rivers, particularly in the Lowcountry, presented these situations of low head. This in essence
remains the technology used in modem hydroelectric turbines. By the later nineteenth century, stock
pattern turbines were available (Anderson et al. 1988: 458 -460; Hay 1991: 60 -67). These various water
power technologies were in widespread use throughout the South Carolina upcountry during the
nineteenth century, where the rivers could sustain industrial sites.
National hydroelectric developments emerged in a pioneering phase during the early 1880s.
South Carolina, however, did not enter the field until 1894 with the creation of the Columbia Mills. This
was the first time in the nation that hydroelectric power operated an entire textile mill. A contemporary
observer noted the time lag between the appearance of hydroelectric power and its introduction into
textile mills, claiming mill owners were conservative, but always on the look -out for labor- saving
machinery: "They are slow to act when new ideas are broached, but, having once made up their minds,
carry out the work with the greatest sagacity and skill" (Bell 1895:275). Innovations in hydropower
technology facilitated the growth of a burgeoning textile industry in South Carolina.
South Carolina saw its first use of hydroelectric power applied to municipal concerns in
Columbia in 1896. The Columbia Water Power Company built a powerhouse and dam that replaced the
original powerhouse for the Columbia Mill. This plant not only provided power for the Columbia Mills,
but also for Columbia's street railway system and city lighting system (Kovacik and Winberry 1989:
118). Anderson, South Carolina was the next South Carolina city to receive street lighting by way of
hydroelectric power. After William Whittier designed the small hydroelectric facility for the Town of
Anderson, the Anderson Water, Light, and Power Company had him build a dam and hydroelectric
facility at Portman Shoals on the Seneca River, which was completed in 1897.
Brockington and Associates
23

William States Lee, an Anderson native, served as the resident engineer and Whitner's assistant,
and oversaw the installation of the nation's first 10,000 -volt generator (Durden 1999: 415; Electrical
World 1910: 738). This power was sent along some of the nation's first high- tension electrical
transmission lines and powered electric lights for the city of Anderson, which became known as "Electric
City," along with eight mills built between 1899 and 1903 (Carlton 1982: 134; Kovacik and Winberry
1989: 118). The Portman Shoals site was also owned by Dr. Walker Gill Wylie, who was also one of the
stockholders and leaders in the Anderson Water, Light, and Power Company. He later played a great role
in the development of hydroelectric power in South Carolina (Durden 1999: 417).
These hydroelectric facilities at the mills and the municipal plants for Columbia and Anderson,
for all of their technological innovations, were relatively small affairs and local in scope. This was not to
be the pattern of hydroelectric activity in the state or the nation in the twentieth century. This was the era
when immensely powerful and wealthy men with imperial visions consolidated smaller firms within
various industries. It was the period when John D. Rockefeller organized the Standard Oil Company,
when Andrew Carnegie was amassing what was to become the United States Steel Company, and when
the Vanderbilts and others formed the great national railroad companies. In this era of consolidation, any
large -scale industry with national implications that required immense capitalization and had the potential
for immense profits, was ripe for combination. The generation of electricity, particularly hydroelectric
power, was among these industries, and South Carolina was one of the principal areas where the effect of
consolidation was felt.
The South's first regional power company, the Catawba Power Company, had its origins in these
early hydroelectric plants of the 1890s. Instead of consolidating previously -built plants and transmission
lines, this company created its own network of plants. William Whitner, the engineer who designed the
plants for Anderson, sought to build another dam and hydroelectric plant at India Hook Shoals on the
Catawba River near Rock Hill. Whitner approached Dr. Walker Gill Wylie of the Anderson Water, Light,
and Power Company about funding. Wylie, a native of Chester, South Carolina and by 1900 a successful
physician in New York City, was deeply interested in the development of hydroelectric power and had
been a backer of the projects in Anderson. In 1900, Wylie, along with his brother Robert and Whitner,
created the Catawba Power Company with the plan of building the plant at India Hook Shoals. During
construction, Whitner resigned as engineer. In his place, the Wylies hired William States Lee, Whitner's
former assistant who at the time was overseeing the construction of a hydroelectric plant in Columbus,
Georgia.
Together, Lee and the Wylies completed the dam and hydroelectric plant in 1904 (Durden 1999:
419- 422; Electrical World 1910: 739). Wylie introduced Lee into his vision for the complete
development of the Catawba - Wateree River system in North and South Carolina. Hydroelectric plants
would capture the entire fall of the river system, according to this vision, and would provide electricity to
the Piedmont's growing cities and would power the region's textile mills which were growing so quickly
in number. James B. "Buck" Duke, a North Carolinian who moved to New York and consolidated the
nation's leading tobacco companies into the American Tobacco Company in 1890, heard of this vision
from Dr. Wylie. After a meeting with Lee and Wylie, Duke offered to support the project from his
enormous coffers.
Buck Duke, along with his older brother Benjamin N. Duke, was no stranger to hydroelectric
power. In the late 1890s, he and his brother Ben, who had invested in textile plants in North Carolina in
the early 1890s, began buying water power sites in North and South Carolina under the American
Development Company, which they created in 1899 (Durden 1999:425; Maynor [1979]: 14; Savage
1973: 298). In particular, Duke was willing to risk his money on the still relatively untested transmission
of high - voltage electrical power over long distances for use in manufacturing operations. Lee was able to
Brockington and Associates
24

interest Duke in his plan to link the various proposed hydroelectric plants along the Catawba River in
order to provide the continuous system that textile plants would need (Durden 1999: 427). In 1905,with
Duke's support, the Catawba Power Company became part of the new Southern Power Company, the
predecessor to Duke Power Company. By 1920, the Southern Power Company had created a network of
hydroelectric power houses along the Catawba - Wateree river system, including facilities at Great Falls
with a 71 foot head, at Rocky Creek with a 58 foot head, at Lookout Shoals near Hickory, with a 78 foot
head, at Fishing Creek below the old Catawba project with a 68 foot head, at Wateree near Camden with a
72 foot head, at Ninety -Nine Islands on the Broad River with a 68 foot head, and at Morganton with a 135
foot head ( Maynor [1979]: 13; Savage 1973: 298 -299). By the 1940s, one historian noted, Duke Power
Company's dams were placed and used so efficiently that "they capture for electric energy all but 304 of
the 1,056 feet of the river's fall" (Simkins 1953: 478).
The original plan of Lee, Wylie, and Duke with the Southern Power Company was to provide
electricity to the region's textile mills. Duke independently built several hydroelectric powered textile
plants, and provided financial support for others to create plants. However, residential customers soon
came to be an important component of Southern Power Company's market. Beginning with textile mill
villages that mill owners insisted be supplied with electric power, Southern Power Company began
serving residences and businesses in the region's towns and cities (Durden 2000:54; Maynor [1979]: 36-
37). Other plants were built in South Carolina at the same time as the Southern Power Company's
networks were created. By 1907, the Columbia Water Power Company, the Anderson Water, Gas &
Electric Company, and Southern Power Company were joined by the Electric Power and Manufacturing
Company, the Union Manufacturing and Power Company, the Saluda River Power Company, and the
Savannah River Power Company (Handbook 1907). In 1915, the Georgia - Carolina Power Company
completed a dam and hydroelectric facility and a steam generating station near Augusta, Georgia, along
the Savannah River near the mouth of Stevens Creek. The energy was supplied to the Augusta -Aiken
Railway & Electric Corporation, which then sold the electricity for both industrial and municipal uses.
The dam impounded water for 13 miles upstream, and provided an average head of 27 feet. The power
house contained ten generators in two groups. The turbines were vertical shaft Francis type, each
connected to a three -phase Westinghouse generator. The J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New
York designed the plant (Electrical World 1915).
One of the chief problems in generating hydroelectric power was dealing with fluctuations in the
river levels. Floods could wash out dams and power houses, while droughts could put a halt to the
generation of power. In the mid- 1920s, for example, just as the Southern Power Company's network was
gaining strength, a record drought lowered lake levels nearly to the ground. This situation forced a more
widespread acceptance of having ajoining steam plants to the hydroelectric facility. As one historian has
noted, although Southern Power Company already had two steam generating plants, "the unified system
of mutually supplementing steam and hydro plants of today's system was born of the 1925 drought. By
1930, a fourth of the power sold was produced in steam plants" (Savage 1973:300).
The late 1920s and early 1930s brought two more hydroelectric projects of vast scope and
widespread importance to South Carolina. These two, however, show the changing tenor of the
hydroelectric industry in South Carolina and the nation as public agencies began to play increasingly
important roles. The first of these two projects was the dam and hydroelectric facility at Dreher's Shoals
on the Saluda River, between Lexington and Columbia. This massive project was undertaken by the
Lexington Power Company, a subsidiary of the General Gas and Electric Corporation of New York City
(Garner 1928: 59). Clearing operations and dam construction began in 1927. The dam was 1.5 miles long,
and at the time was the world's largest earthen dam used for hydroelectric power. Four penstocks fed the
power house, and received their water from four reinforced concrete intake towers approximately 900 feet
into the lake behind the dam. The power house, built of concrete and brick with steel framing, held six
turbines of the vertical shaft Francis type, built by the S. Morgan Smith Company of York, Pennsylvania.
Brockington and Associates
25

Each turbine was designed to develop a maximum of 55,650 horsepower, and is connected to a
Westinghouse generator. The generators are in turn connected to a General Electric transformer located at
the power station. Various power companies, including Duke Power, Carolina Power & Light, and Broad
River Power, had transmission lines hooked up to the power station (Campbell et al. 1931; Williams
1931: 43 -47).
The second large -scale project of the 1930s was the Santee - Cooper hydroelectric facility, which
included dams forming both Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion. This enormous project was the first time
that the State of South Carolina entered the power business. It was a controversial move, and was part of a
larger national discussion regarding the consolidation of private hydroelectric facilities into a very few
large corporations. Hydroelectric power was one of the industries that experienced the greatest degree of
consolidation during the period of economic and industrial consolidation in the 1910s and 1920s. Because
the amount of capital necessary to erect dams, power houses, substations, and cross - country transmission
lines, concentration of resources was necessary. Few individual companies could compete in what was
coming to be a natural monopoly. The number of power companies in America declined from 4,224 in
1912 to 1,627 in 1932. By the early 1930s, most of these plants were in the hands of six giant
corporations; Duke Power Company was alone in remaining independent of outside holding companies.
Moreover, most hydroelectric power was sent to various states from individual power plants;
hydroelectric power was therefore an aspect of interstate commerce, and not subject to regulation by state
governments (Morrison and Commager 1937: 537 -539; Tindall 1967: 74).
The Federal government alone had the ability to regulate the generation, transmission, and sale of
hydroelectric power. In the 1920s and 1930s, however, the Federal government was not inclined to
involve itself in regulating hydroelectric power. Under a reforming Progressive impulse that was led by
Senators Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin and George Norris of Nebraska, Congress made several moves
to encourage public ownership of hydropower plants. The first attempt was the Water Powers Act of
1920, which authorized the Federal Water Power Commission to regulate power plants on the navigable
streams of public lands. It proved to be of little value, however, and citizens, industries, and
municipalities alike continued to complain of extortionary electric rates by the private utility companies.
The central fight of the decade was for control of the Muscle Shoals plant on the Tennessee River in
Alabama. The Muscle Shoals plant was constructed by the government shortly before America's
entrance into World War I under a bill introduced by South Carolina Senator Ellison D. Smith. In 1928,
Congress passed a highly contentious bill to permit continued government operation. President Coolidge
vetoed the measure in 1928, and his successor, President Hoover, vetoed a similar bill in 1931. While
there was some divisiveness, most southern congressional representatives supported public ownership of
the power plant as a way to stimulate business in the South (Grantham 1994: 93 -94; Morrison and
Commager 1937:538; Schlesinger 1959: 322; Tindall 1967: 241).
The move toward public control of hydroelectric power plants gained momentum in the 1930s
under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. As one historian of the New Deal observed,
Roosevelt "shared the popular outrage at the electric power octopuses that had fleeced the consumer,
corrupted legislatures, and, by their elusive operations, evaded state regulation" (Leuchtenberg 1963:
154). The South in the New Deal continued to support federal policies such as the Agricultural
Adjustment Act and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. These agencies pumped significant
amounts of federal aid into the South, which had been in a state of economic crisis since the 1920s, long
before the onset of the Great Depression. By late 1933, one historian notes, "more than four million
southerners (more than one in every eight) were receiving public relief dispensed by the federal
government" (Grantham 1994: 120). Of particular interest was the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
which was established 18 May 1933 and provided a "coordinated regional program of flood control,
navigation, agricultural regeneration, and cheap hydroelectric power" to the South (Grantham 1994: 119).
Brockington and Associates
2B

In addition, the TVA solved the Muscle Shoals controversy by incorporating the plant into its regional
network.
South Carolina in the 1930s was in the vanguard of attempts to provide public control of
hydroelectric power and to provide electricity to its rural citizens. The state Railroad Commission, which
was reorganized in 1922, had the authority to fix reasonable rates for water, gas, and electricity. In 1932,
the Electric Utilities Division of the Railroad Commission was created, and by 1935, the name of the
railroad commission was changed to the Public Service Commission to reflect the growing importance of
public utilities. In 1934, meanwhile, the state legislature created the State Rural Electrification Authority
as a way to promote "the fullest possible use of electrical energy in rural areas. Organized before the
national Rural Electrification Administration, the state Authority contributed much to rural electrification
in South Carolina" (Larsen 1947: 12).
The South Carolina legislature created the Public Service Authority in 1934. The principal
purpose of this agency was to develop the Cooper, Santee, and Congaree rivers for navigation,
hydroelectric power, and to reclaim swampy lands. This state agency was the result of a failed attempt in
the winter of 1934 to seek a $34,000,000 loan from the federal government to develop a hydroelectric
project in the southeastern part of the state, an area that had not benefitted from hydroelectric power to the
extent that the Upstate had. As a contemporary journalist described the Santee - Cooper defeat, there was
"considerable opposition... to the proposal that the state enter the power business" (Ball 1934: 272).
Private power companies resented the prospect of competition from the state government, and factions
within the legislature were unconvinced that it was a proper function of the state. The different factions
within the legislature eventually came to a compromise, however, and enabling legislation was passed in
April 1934 (Ball 1934).
The precedent for federal funds for an intrastate hydroelectric power facility had to wait until
January 1938, when the Supreme Court handed down a decision regarding the Buzzard Roost facility in
South Carolina and several facilities in Alabama. The plan called for dams to impound two enormous
reservoirs. These reservoirs, now Lakes Moultrie and Marion, would be used to facilitate navigation and
to provide hydroelectric power. The hydroelectric plant was located at Pinopolis, near Moncks Corner.
Despite continuing opposition from private power companies through the late 1930s, the plant went on
line in 1942 (Ball 1934; Kovacik and Winberry 1989:119; Larsen 1947:14).
By 1942, South Carolina had twenty hydroelectric plants with a capacity of over 720,000
kilowatts. As of June 1953, fifteen of these plants were owned by Duke Power Company, which had a
total hydroelectric capacity of 323,230 kilowatts, and four were owned by the South Carolina Electric and
Gas Company, which had a hydroelectric capacity of 178,230 kilowatts. This helped to ensure that
privately held power companies still dominated hydroelectric power generation in South Carolina; of the
nearly 675,000 kilowatt generating capacity in the state in the early 1950s, publicly owned plants
represented only 152,000 (State Development Board 1955: 117).
2.4 Power Development at Keowee - Toxaway: Controversy and
Compromise
To meet the new increased electrical demand in the Carolina Piedmont after World War II, Duke Power
began construction of higher- capacity generating facilities, including several large steam plants.
According to Durden (2001), power stations increased exponentially in size (Figure 2.9) due to improved
technologies, particularly in steam turbines, during the 1945 -1965 period (Table 2.2). By the end of the
1950s alone, new steam plants could generate over one million kilowatts of power. In 1958, Duke Power
reported that of its total 12.5 billion kilowatt hours, 85.3 percent came from steam plants, 13.3 by hydro,
Brockington and Associates
27

and 1.4 percent was purchased from other companies (Darden 2001). By 1965, its hydro capacity dipped
to 8.4 percent (Duke Power 1965). During this time, Duke Power's net electric generation grew from
2.65 billion kwh in 1940 to 22.65 billion kwh in 1965. Figure 2.10 illustrates the Duke Power service area
and its generating portfolio during this period.
Table 2.2 Anticipated Additions to Duke Power's Generating Capacity, 1945 -1965 (Duke Power 1965).
Generation Additions to Existing Steam Plants
Began Operation
Net Peak Capacity - KW
Lee #1 -2 (Anderson, SC)
1951
209,220
Riverbend #4 -5 (Charlotte, NC)
1952
217,800
Buck #5 -6 (Salisbury, NC)
1953
275,200
Riverbend #6 -7 (Charlotte, NC)
1954
285,600
Dan River #3 (Reidsville, NC)
1955
156,580
Allen #1 -2 (Belmont, NC)
1957
339,720
Lee #3 (Anderson, SC)
1958
169,860
Allen #3 (Behnont, NC)
1960
274,920
Allen #4 (Behnont, NC)
1961
274,920
Allen #5 (Behnont, NC)
1961
293,720
Marshall #I (Catawba, NC)
1965
373,550
Marshall #2 (Catawba, NC)
1966
373,550
Marshall #3 (Catawba, NC)
1969
650,000
Hydro Additions, 1951 -1966
Cowans Ford # 1 -3
1962
650,000
Cowans Ford #4
1967
93,000
Total Additions
4,637,640
Although the company relied heavily on its steam generating plants, it was also interested in other
new sources of power. By 1960, the atomic age had arrived and while Duke Power was not ready to begin
construction of a wholly -owned nuclear generating station, it partnered with three neighboring utilities
(Carolina Power and Light, Virginia Electric and Power Company, and South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company) to form Carolinas- Virginia Nuclear Power Associates, Inc. In 1963, this conglomerate
completed the first nuclear reactor in the US South, on the Broad River at Parr, South Carolina ( Durden
2001:121).
As discussed earlier, most of the hydropower development underway during the mid - twentieth
century was initiated by the federal government for its multi - purpose river system projects. But, Duke
Power had yet to abandon hydropower as a source of electricity. In 1963, Duke completed the last project
of the Catawba - Wateree system, Cowans Ford in North Carolina. Cowans Ford represented a new era for
Duke Power in that the company also saw the impoundment, Lake Norman, as an investment opportunity.
In addition to leasing popular lakeside lots, the company formed a subsidiary to develop the real estate
around the lake ( Durden 2001).
During the early 1960s, Duke Power also began planning a larger, more comprehensive power
generation project. Located in the Upstate of South Carolina near Seneca, the Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project was conceived to include the company's first wholly -owned nuclear generating facility
supplemented initially by two hydroelectric stations (with long -range plans for additional pumped storage
Brockington and Associates
2B

plants). The company also proposed to build a steam generating plant and dam on the Savannah River on
property it owned at Middleton Shoals.
The integrated Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project was designed to optimize the natural resources
of the South Carolina Upstate (Figure 2.11). The lynchpin of the project was a thermoelectric station to
supply base load capacity. A pumped- storage hydropower component at Jocassee would supply medium -
capacity peaking hydroelectricity, while the Keowee hydro station would supply additional peaking
capacity and serve as a backup power supply for the nuclear station (Figures 2.12- 2.13). Importantly,
engineers had identified the Keowee Reservoir as the source of cooling water for the thermo generation as
well as the lower reservoir for the Jocassee pumped- storage facility. Other pumped- storage developments
were conceived in the saddles of the higher terrain above Jocassee.
Economic comparisons among the conceptual plans established that the Keowee-
Toxaway [Energy] Project was the lowest cost source of these combined types of
capacity. It is this combination that provided the economic justification for each of the
major elements of the projects. For example, the hydroelectric station with its associated
reservoir was not economically justified on the basis of its hydroelectricity alone when
compared to alternative sources of peaking capacity. However, the reservoir provided a
source of cooling water and tailwater storage for a pumped- storage project at its upper
end. When these complex uses were reflected in the economic analyses, the justification
was established when compared to alternatives (Duke Power 1975).
Duke Power had identified the hydropower potential of the Keowee - Toxaway area as early as
1916. At that time, according to one employee, the company was trying to determine whether to utilize
the high -head available in the mountainous terrain, or to regulate the flow of the Catawba River for its
plants there. Although the company went to the extent of purchasing some land in the Upstate, it
ultimately decided to abandon the area in favor of additional plants along the Catawba. With the need for
additional power in the mid - twentieth century, Duke Power again looked to the Oconee and Pickens
county area. In 1963, the company formed a subsidiary called the South Carolina Land and Timber
Company to purchase land needed for the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project. The combined planning and
construction efforts for the project were an ambitious endeavor, and had the potential for major impacts to
water flows on the Savannah River and its tributaries (Durden 2001).
Because the power project involved multiple interdependent generating stations, and the fact that
the Keowee Reservoir would provide essential cooling water for a the base load thermoelectric facility,
Duke Power had to first file with the Federal Power Commission (now FERC) for a license to construct
and operate the hydroelectric facilities. When it filed for a license in January 1965, the company met with
immediate resistance from downstream federal power interests. The USACE had a system -wide flood
control effort underway along the Savannah River, including three projects with a hydropower
component, Hartwell, Clarks Hill, and Trotter Shoals. A group of federal power customers, primarily
rural electric cooperatives in the Carolinas and Georgia, began a vocal opposition to the Keowee-
Toxaway Energy Project. Because political support in South Carolina strongly supported Duke Power's
efforts, ultimately, the federal power customers in South Carolina dropped their protests. In 1965,
Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall expressed his own opposition to Keowee - Toxaway. Udall
suggested that Duke Power could always purchase its peak power needs from the federal government and
that Keowee - Toxaway was an unnecessary excess into the electrical market (Durden 2001). Duke Power
President W.B. McGuire responded:
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the Secretary of the Interior or any
other officer of the Federal government has ever suggested that he knows more about our
future power requirements than we do. It is also the first time, to my knowledge, that any
Brockington and Associates
29

agency of the federal government has ever taken the position that we should not build our
own generating plants, but should buy our hydro - electric power from federal government
plants (Electrical World, August 2, 1965).
Concurrently, Duke Power was also opposing the federal government's multi - purpose project at
Trotter Shoals (now R. B. Russell Lake and Dam), which had been authorized by Congress in 1966. The
regional investor -owned utilities, including Duke Power, Georgia Power, Carolina Power and Light, and
South Carolina Electric and Gas, had all been vocal against regional federal hydropower development.
During the 1930s and 1940s, when the USACE, Bureau of Reclamation, and the TVA were constructing
multi - purpose projects, the federal agencies also built associated transmission facilities. In the southeast,
however, the private power interests opposed federal transmission lines, arguing that because the region
already had a sufficient grid, customers would be forced to pay for an excess service. By the 1950s, the
private power interests had won the argument, and Congress defunded all planned federal transmission
lines in the South. This left the regional federal power marketing agency, SEPA, to contract or `wheel'
with investor -owned utilities in order to serve the federal power customers (Durden 2001; Norwood
1990). It was against this backdrop of public versus private power animosity that the Keowee - Toxaway
Energy Project was argued and negotiated.
Ultimately, the parties negotiated a compromise in 1966. Officials from Duke Power,
Congressional delegations from Georgia and South Carolina, and representatives of the electric
cooperatives met in the offices of Senator Richard B. Russell (D -GA). Duke Power agreed to drop its
opposition to the Trotter Shoals project and the federal government and cooperatives agreed to no longer
oppose the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project. That same year, the FPC granted Duke a license to operate
the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (Durden 2001; Augusta Chronicle July 21, 1966). That same
year, Duke announced that the anticipated thermal base load for the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project
would be supplied by the company's first wholly -owned nuclear facility, the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Duke Power proceeded quickly with the project and an official groundbreaking ceremony was
held on April 11, 1967, with South Carolina Governor Robert McNair and Duke Power President W. B.
McGuire detonating a blast of dynamite (Figure 2.14). Clearing operations of the two reservoir basins had
begun almost three months earlier, however, and contracts were issued to Blythe Brothers of Charlotte
and Clement Brothers of Hickory, North Carolina (Figure 2.15). The project involved a massive amount
of timber clearing. One estimate (Duke Power 1975) suggested that the timber harvesting in 1967 alone
could fill nearly 4,000 railroad cars (Figure 2.16).
Construction of the Keowee Reservoir proved an enormous undertaking. It was designed to
include an 18,500 -acre reservoir formed by two parallel rivers. To do this, engineers designed two
compacted earthfill dams, one on the Keowee River and the other on the Little River, along with a major
canal connecting the two watersheds. The canal was designed to be used as a river diversion structure to
divert one of the two rivers into the other while one dam was being constructed. Then, when the other
dam was under construction, the other river would be diverted. This required a "major coordinating ... and
monitoring" effort during the field construction, but allowed for "substantial" cost savings (Duke Power
1975). Environmental protection measures for the historic Newry Mill Village, located on the Little River
downstream of the dam site, were also incorporated into the design. To contain the reservoir, four earth -
filled saddle dikes were constructed along the eastern edge of the lake, adjacent to present -day State
Route 130 (Figure 2.17).
The Keowee Hydro Station included two conventional hydroelectric units of 70 MW each, fed
by a single intake and tunnel that bifurcated the stream flow near the units' turbines (Figures 2.18- 2.19).
Both units consist of Westinghouse generators powered by Allis Chalmers turbines (Figure 2.20). The
powerhouse (Figures 2.21 -2.27) was a simple utilitarian design, utilizing materials (steel siding and
Brockington and Associates
30

superstructure) and design features similar to Duke Power's steam power stations constructed during the
1950s and 1960s. The development also included a concreted spillway (Figure 2.28), located immediately
east of the powerhouse, controlled by four radial tainter gates. Plans incorporated Keowee Hydro Station
to serve as the emergency power supply for Oconee Nuclear Station. This redundant system consists of a
mile -long secured underground transmission cable as well as a backup overhead power supply. In the
event of a power failure at Oconee Nuclear Station, the conventional hydro units at Keowee could start up
in under twenty -three seconds (Duke Power Company 1975). The impoundment of Lake Keowee began
in April 1970 (Figure 2.29), and the facility went into commercial operation in April 1971 (Figure 2.30).
Construction began at Jocassee in January 1968, with the impoundment of the lake beginning in
April 1971. More than 11 million cubic yards of earth and rock were required for construction of the rock
and earthfill dam, which at the time of its construction, was the second highest in America (Figure 2.31).
The powerhouse (Figures 2.32 -2.39) was an "outdoor" design, meaning the generating units were
constructed below -grade with no encompassing aboveground powerhouse structure. The site did include a
small concrete structure through which entry was gained to the below -grade five -level powerhouse
(Figure 2.39). The powerhouse was designed to contain four reversible pump turbines units (Figure 2.40)
with a combined capacity of 610 megawatts and the units were expected to operate in generating mode 20
to 40 percent of the time. The intake structures (Figures 2.41 -2.43) at Jocassee were identical in design to
the single structure at Keowee, which assisted in cost - savings during construction. Jocassee's design
included a long concreted spillway with two radial tainter gates (Figure 2.44) near the western saddle
dike. Jocassee was also intentionally designed to serve as the lower pool for several future high -head
pumped storage developments in the higher elevations above the reservoir. Jocassee went into
commercial operation with Units 1 and 2 on December 19, 1973 (Figure 2.45).
Construction permits for the Oconee Nuclear Station, the base load lynchpin of the energy
project, were granted in 1967 and full operating licenses were received from the Atomic Energy
Commission in 1973. Oconee Nuclear Station went online that same year with its first two reactors; a
third reactor was completed by the late 1970s. As discussed, Duke Power planned for the $700 million
Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project to meet long -range needs and anticipated other potential pumped -
storage facilities in the higher elevations above Jocassee. In fact, according to Duke Power, "certain
necessary provisions for one of these future sites [Bad Creek]" were designed and built prior to the filling
of Lake Jocassee. Duke Power filed with the FPC in 1974 for the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project
(under a separate license) and anticipated construction to be completed during the mid -1980s (Duke
Power 1975). The Bad Creek Project was ultimately completed in 1991 and currently operates under a
separate FERC license.
The Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project met with critical acclaim from the engineering community.
In 1972, Duke Power received the prestigious Edison Award for the design and concept of the project,
particularly the environmental protection and enhancement efforts displayed by the company during the
early planning process. In 1975, the project received the Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement
Award bestowed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). While the engineering and design
of the project generation facilities played an important role in the award, Duke Power's nomination
package emphasized that local area support and the environmental enhancement of the Keowee River
Valley was a major consideration during planning and construction (Figure 2.46). Over the course of the
project, Duke Power sponsored archaeological investigations, relocated historic buildings, worked with
state wildlife agencies to stock the reservoirs, invested millions of dollars in recreational use areas,
encouraged waterfront development, donated tens of thousands of acres for game management areas,
donated land for the Keowee - Toxaway State Park, and constructed a 13,000- square foot visitor education
center, "The World of Energy" (Duke Power 1975).
Brockington and Associates
31

Figure 2.9. Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station (completed 1965).
Brockington and Associates
K

VIRGINIA
I�•` ELKIN
IOH
CD ES4F. r ^1 i
pQp
f ^
OXFORD
HICKoD
o 0
��'C � O MOPOaviO vAL E �RY
3N
M P OH
LAKE NOR.MAM
COWANS FORD
uNCaLHTOH O
LAKE LURE'QI,, RUTHERFDRDTON
_.4DERSDNVILLE TURNER [1I �fP.DA11 RIVERBENO
O iuxEao TP -H Ci DE� O xH�Pr EGASr ©lam
BR PD R`.._ (i__ __—__
A
LLEN)
O A
NM CH E SHOAL1
PEAYER REST O SPARTAN9URG
O
9913E
11CKENS EP �O, Hs
10G0.EENVILLEMA
9fALH+ue SALUDA 51 IuF
lR o MR0HY owooRPXEE
0w111� ITON O EouNT:IN wH
rENaLETON LEE 16
'` ti ^� AND�0.50NO HO LAU�RFNS WnO dv[
GEORGIA 1 HoNEA rarH
.l
� IQ
1
R`
i DISTRICT OFFICE
O BRANCH OFFICE
" STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
® HYDROELECTRIC STATION
— - - — - — - — - — - — - �/iaaw RIVER— .__— ._.— _ —
MoX�A�Rr `V-
M.ofoN
HAROMONY MOCKEV ILLE
Q
KING
REIDSVILLE
O
O
GREENSBORO BURLINGTON.
u[KHE sOvnL[
—NSTON -SALEM
. �� aM 6M[Enu[O
—1-1111E XiusR 0
ouDU •AM
OH
HIGH PDIN7
OS !¢[ sHQ[dw
aH
THO
QrRo TinAH BRICK
U
�ESYSG: L«SBURs-
rAvV
O
0aO [wEL
I MTH. ISLAND
IGUHT CHALOTTE
q MAO-E
0v E.
r. 1\ OW-.—
I Ow° w
I
LHFOfTFR =FISHING CREEK
A sO
GREAT FALLS
OID ® DEARBflRN
ROCKY CREEK QED C €DAF CFEER
WATEREE I FIT
Figure 2.10 Duke Power service area with generating plants, 1960s.
Brockington and Associates
33
M SXYEyE
RO
NORTH CAROLINA
--------------
SOUTH CAROLINA
4'
PF
LE
�b
S. C
N. C.

Figure 2.11 Artist's rendering of the proposed Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project.
Brockington and Associates
34

Figure 2.12 Anticipated Keowee - Toxaway load generation.
Brockington and Associates
35
KEOWEE-TOXAWAY GENERATION SUPERIMPOSED ON
SIMPLIFIED LOAD DURATION CURVE
LAST HALF YEAR
LOAD FACTOR-67%
90
WORD
PUMPED - STORAGE
eP
rP
GENERATION
i a
s
PUMPING
ENERGY
:
FROM
a
NUCLEAR
o �
i
u
u ♦P
'
NUCLEAR
GENERATION
w
zo
iP
P
.ti
1000 1000 JO PP
I
40PO 441• SOOP
HOURS !N SIX MONTHS
FIG y
Figure 2.12 Anticipated Keowee - Toxaway load generation.
Brockington and Associates
35

KEOWEE— TOXAWAY PROJECT
EL.2310
\ FUTURE
UPPER
LAKE JOCASSEE POOL
UPPER POOL IV
FUTURE PUMP r
DEVELOP
DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT AREA
`
JOCASSEE DAM S P.H
1
r_-.. N. C.
S. C.
± DUKE POWER COMPANY
$ERVICE AREA
EL,1110 JOCASSFE DAM
LAKE KEOWEE
EL. 800 KEOWEE DAM
CONNECTING CANAL — KEOWEE DAM a P.H. TOXAWAY RIVER
EL.660
O NUCLEAR KEOWEE RIVER
/ STATION ATION -
CONNECTING CANAL
LITTLE RIVER DAM EL.800 LITTLE RIVER DAM
EL.660
LITTLE RIVER `
Figure 2.13 Planned locations of Keowee - Toxaway Development generation facilities and proposed pool levels (Duke
Power 1975).
Brockington and Associates
36

Figure 2.14 The official groundbreaking on April 11, 1967 for the Keowee - Toxaway Power Project included South
Carolina Governor Robert McNair (left) and Duke Power President W.B. McGuire (right) detonating a dynamite blast.
Brockington and Associates
37

33
AW
'Alp
Figure 2.15 Construction of the Keowee - Toxaway Power Project, 1969, showing Keowee impoundment in the
background, Oconee Nuclear Station (left) and Keowee Development (right).
Brockington and Associates
38

e�. y..- b`.. ` � a s��'���_: ,.:` -+'►�
_�
a
/ ,.4W �.
1-0
, W�o
r
Figure 2.16 Construction of the Keowee - Toxaway Power Project, 1969, Oconee Nuclear Station (left) and Keowee
Development (right).
Brockington and Associates
39

Figure 2.17 Early construction photograph, showing the Little River Dam and re- routing of State Route 130, September
1968. Historic Newry mill village can be seen center - right. Duke's environmental protection measures included the
installation of riprap on the shoreline near the mill to prevent erosion.
Brockington and Associates
40

Figure 2.18 Keowee Intake Structure, under construction in December 1968.
Brockington and Associates

z �
'1 •yea
Figure 2.19 Keowee Intake Tunnel, showing bifurcated sections leading to turbines, August 1968.
Brockington and Associates
42

JAC
1
z
t
Figure 2.20 Keowee Unit Installation, October 1970.
Brockington and Associates
43

Figure 2.21 Keowee Hydro Station, construction in progress as viewed from the tailrace, December 1968.
Brockington and Associates
44

Figure 2.22 Keowee Hydro Station, construction in progress as viewed from the tailrace, December 1969.
Brockington and Associates
45

Figure 2.23 Keowee Hydro Station, aerial view of steel framing under construction, April 1970.
Brockington and Associates
4B

Figure 2.24 Keowee Hydro Station, detail view of installation of pre- fabricated concrete panel siding, May 1970.
Brockington and Associates
47

Figure 2.25 Keowee Hydro Station, interior view, August 1970.
Brockington and Associates
48

s
■ ;,iii +' -
trial
Tlrl tfiiiiiiii
off
ri
=::ttt ;iii
a4
Figure 2.26 Keowee Hydro Station Control Room, September 1970.
Brockington and Associates
49

KlOWK PRojui
8 27 7o No iaz,
Figure 2.27 Keowee Hydro Station nearing completion in August 1970.
Brockington and Associates
50

Figure 2.28 Keowee Spillway and tainter gates, December 1968.
Brockington and Associates

Figure 2.29 Impoundment of Lake Keowee was made possible by the construction of four saddle dikes, buttressed on the
lakeside by riprap (saddle dikes run parallel to the roadway in the center of photograph).
Brockington and Associates
52

Figure 2.30 Aerial photograph of the completed Keowee Development, October 1973.
Brockington and Associates
53

Figure 2.31 Construction of Jocassee Dam and Powerhouse, November 1970.
Brockington and Associates
54

- L
-, M, or-
Figure 2.32 Construction of Jocassee Powerhouse, October 1972, showing below-grade excavation.
Brockington and Associates
55

Figure 2.33 Jocassee Powerhouse from above, July 1972.
Brockington and Associates
56

Figure 2.34 Jocassee Powerhouse, as seen from the dam, December 1973.
Brockington and Associates
57

Figure 2.35 July 1975 photograph illustrating the "outdoor design' of the powerhouse with a full lower pool ready for
pump -back mode.
Brockington and Associates
5B

Figure 2.36 View of Jocassee Powerhouse interior, March 1972.
Brockington and Associates
59

Figore 2.37 Jocassee Powerhouse control room, July 1973.
Brockington and Associates
BB

Figure 2.38 View of completed Jocassee Powerhouse interior, July 1975.
Brockington and Associates

1- IAI
t R vj i�
— � e
a
Figure 2.39 Steel framing for the powerhouse entry, April 1972.
Brockington and Associates
62

Figure 2.40 Installation of Unit 2 at Jocassee Development, September 1973.
Brockington and Associates
63

Figure 2.41 Jocassee's intake structures were identical in design to the one constructed for the Keowee Development.
Photo January 1972.
Brockington and Associates
B4

Figure 2.42 January 1972 photograph of one of two of Jocassee's concrete -lined intake tunnels, showing bifurcation in
background.
Brockington and Associates
B5

,y
V'
i
Figure 2.43 June 1972 photograph of Jocassee Unit 4's draft tube, which was fed by one of the bifurcated intake tunnels.
Brockington and Associates
BB

�1-
1�
f
JOCASSEE PROJECT
10 5 73 NO 2115

Figure 2.45 Aerial photograph of the completed Jocassee Development, February 1977, showing saddle dike in the
foreground.
Brockington and Associates
BS

s ,
^" f
T
r
AL
Figure 2.46 The Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project earned Duke Power the ASCE's 1975 Outstanding Civil Engineering
Achievement Award (Duke President Bill Lee far left, with other officials; Oconee Nuclear Station in background).
Brockington and Associates
69

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION: Hydroelectric
Structures at Keowee - Toxaway
3.1 Overview and Project Operation
The architectural survey consisted of a pedestrian inspection of both hydroelectric developments,
including the powerhouses, spillways, dams, saddle dikes, and other associated structures. Particular
attention was paid to any changes or modifications to the facilities that might impact the seven aspects of
integrity as outlined in Section 1.3. Photographs were taken of elevations, interiors, and equipment where
practicable. Photographs were also taken, and in some cases were edited, in consideration of sensitive
security equipment. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below provide architectural discussions and illustrations of both
hydroelectric developments.
The Keowee - Toxaway Project consists of two hydroelectric developments: the Keowee
Development and the Jocassee Development. As discussed in Chapter 2, both were planned and
constructed to operate as part of the larger Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project to supplement a
thermoelectric base load. At present, Duke Energy operates the FERC - licensed Project primarily for peak
hydroelectric generation and to support the operation of Oconee Nuclear Station. The Jocassee
Development is the upstream development and consists of a power station, main dam, two intake
structures, and two saddle dikes. Using four reversible pump /turbines, the Jocassee Development pulls
water from a lower pool (Lake Keowee) back into Lake Jocassee for energy storage. At times of peak
energy demand, the Jocassee turbines operate in a conventional mode, discharging water downstream into
the upper reaches of Lake Keowee.
Located 11 miles downstream from the Jocassee Development, the Keowee Development
consists of a powerhouse, two dams, four saddle dikes, an intake structure, a spillway, and an intake
structure for Oconee Nuclear Station. The Keowee Powerhouse generates power with two conventional
generating units, with the water being discharged into the Keowee River. The Keowee Development also
serves as an emergency power supply for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
3.2 Keowee Development (SCDAH Resource 373 -0155)
The 157.5 MW Keowee Development is located on the Keowee River and the Little River in Pickens and
Oconee counties, South Carolina (see Figures 1.1 and 3.1). Construction of the development began in
1967 and was officially completed in 1971 when its two generating units went into commercial operation.
The Keowee Development includes the Keowee Powerhouse, Keowee Dam, the Little River Dam, four
saddle dikes (designated A, B, C, D), the Oconee Nuclear Station intake dike, a gated concrete ogee
spillway, and an intake structure (Figures 3.1 -3.2). The Keowee Powerhouse is located near the east
abutment of the Keowee Dam. The four saddle dikes and the Little River Dam are located along State
Route 130 approximately four miles southeast of the Keowee Powerhouse. Together, these saddle dikes
and dams are the primary structures impounding the Keowee and Little rivers, forming Lake Keowee. At
normal full pond (800 feet above mean sea level [AMSL]), Lake Keowee has a surface area of 17,660
acres and 388 miles of shoreline (including island shorelines). The Keowee Spillway is located east of the
powerhouse and extends down the slope of the Keowee Dam. The Oconee Nuclear Station Intake Dike is
located on the southern periphery of the Oconee Nuclear Station. Other anciliary features of the Keowee
Development, such as transformer yards, associated powerlines, and paved parking lots are located
between the Keowee Powerhouse and the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Brockington and Associates
70

3.2.1 Powerhouse
The Keowee Powerhouse (Figures 3.3 -3.10) includes a steel -frame superstructure set upon a mass
concrete substructure. The generators, turbines, scroll casing, draft tubes, access galleries, and mechanical
equipment gallery are all contained within the powerhouse substructure. Water is released from the draft
tubes into the tailrace through six steel gates on the south side of the substructure. The tailrace,
measuring 150 feet in width and 500 feet in length, is flanked by rock berms on either side of the water's
edge.
The Keowee Powerhouse features characteristics that were common of other Duke generating
facilities of the 1960s. The Belews Creek Steam Station, Marshall Steam Station, and Allen Steam
Station, all feature a similar utilitarian exterior of vertical striated metal and flat roofs. The Marshall (see
Figure 2.9) and Allen facilities feature similar ribbons of steel windows as a clerestory as well as metal
siding (Maynor 1979). At ground level, the Keowee Powerhouse consists of a concrete wall, with pre -cast
material on the exterior. Above that, the exterior elevations are faced with vertically- striated steel sheeting
that is pierced horizontally by a continuous ribbon of steel windows. The west elevation of the building
contains three doors: two steel personnel doors, and a roll -up door for equipment. Additional doors on the
south, north, and east elevations have been secured with welded steel bars. The building roof contains a
minimal pitch, but is hidden behind a parapet, giving the appearance of a flat roof design.
The interior of the powerhouse features a voluminous generating floor, with multiple access
galleries below in the mass concrete foundation. The main functional room of the powerhouse is the
generating floor (see Figure 3.8). The steel -frame superstructure of the building is exposed on the interior
and the steel caps for both generating units are slightly raised above the floor. The generating room is a
large open room, with the spacial clearance required for the 270 -ton electrical steel gantry crane that is
situated along tracks. This crane is used to service the generating units. The floor has a glazed composite
stone finish. The control room is located adjacent to the generating floor on the west side and sits slightly
below - grade. Figure 2.26 in the preceding chapter provides a historical image of the control room
(current image not shown for security purposes). Other galleries below -grade (beneath the generating
floor) provide maintenance access to the wheel pits, discharge tunnels, and other electrical equipment
required for the functioning of the facility.
There have been few changes to the powerhouse facility. A small portion of the generating floor
has been enclosed on the west side to accommodate space for offices and computer terminals. Other
original interior spaces (such as closets) on the west side of the building have been modified for modern
uses such as offices and storage space. Moderate changes have occurred to electrical equipment and
components on the generating floor and the control room. Changes to the interior spaces and electrical
components have little effect on the original integrity of the building. These changes are evolutionary
modifications to incorporate modern technology (such as computer upgrades) to support the primary
purpose of power generation.
3.2.2 Turbines and Generating Equipment
The Keowee Development is a conventional hydro operation with two Francis -type, mixed -flow fixed -
blade turbines (Figures 3.11- 3.12). Keowee has an authorized installed capacity of 78.750 MW for each
unit and a total facility authorized installed capacity of 157.50 MW. Water flow is controlled by the
wicket gates around the turbines for generating power. The Development's turbines were designed and
manufactured by Allis- Chalmers of York, Pennsylvania, and the generators were manufactured by
Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Both Allis- Chalmers and Westinghouse were both well - established
manufacturers of hydroelectric equipment by the mid -to -late twentieth century. The two conventional
units at Keowee exhibit no extraordinary or innovative technologies compared to their contemporaries.
Brockington and Associates
71

The turbines are fed from a power tunnel excavated through the downslope of the Keowee Dam
embankment. The power tunnel extends from the intake structure (Figure 3.13) in Lake Keowee and
bifurcates into two penstocks that lead to the units' scroll casings inside the powerhouse. The scroll
casings supply water into the wicket gates, which control the water flowing into the turbine blades. The
vertical cylindrical intake structure is made of concrete and has eight waterways that are each
approximately 24 feet high by 15 feet wide at the bottom of the structure. The waterways may be closed
by a cylindrical steel gate.
Power from the Keowee generating units is fed into a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission system via a
three winding 230/13.2/13.3 kV Generator Step -Up (GSU) transformer. Interconnection with the grid
occurs in the adjacent Oconee Nuclear Station 230kV switchyard. Switching is accomplished at the 13.8
kV voltage level using generator circuit breakers. Isolated phase bus is used for connections between the
generators, the generator circuit breakers, and the GSU transformers. Normal auxiliary power is supplied
from the 13.8 kV busses and backup power is suppoied from a source within the Oconee Nuclear Station
auxiliaries. These are typical engineering features of contemporary electrical facilities.
3.2.3 Dams and Impoundment
Keowee Dam
Located immediately behind (north of) the powerhouse, the Keowee Dam (Figures 3.14 -3.15) has a crest
elevation of 815.0 feet AMSL. The maximum height of the dam above the downstream toe is
approximately 165 feet and the dam is 3,500 feet long. The dam is a homogeneous embankment
constructed of compacted earthfill with a drainage blanket beneath the downstream slope to control any
water seepage. The upstream side of the dam is faced with stone -rip rap. The crest of Keowee Dam has a
gravel roadway used for Project- related dam maintenance and monitoring. Both the dam and the drainage
blanket represent typical design and construction practices of the mid -to -late twentieth century.
Spillway
The Keowee Spillway (Figures 3.16 -3.18) is located approximately 600 feet east of the powerhouse
toward the east abutment of the Keowee Dam. It consists of a 176 -foot wide channel with concrete
wingwalls, a concrete gravity ogee structure fitted with four tainter gates (each measuring 38 -by -35 feet),
a 311 -foot long tapered chute section with reinforced - concrete floor, concrete side walls, and a concrete
flip bucket at the base of the chute for energy dissipation. The spillway is designed to pass water from
the upstream side of the dam in a controlled fashion. The spillway features no unique design features or
operations features for its period of construction. Spillways, as opposed to gated dams, became a common
feature in the larger impoundments of the mid -to -late twentieth century.
Little River Dam
The Little River Dam (Figure 3.19) is located approximately three miles north- northeast of Seneca, South
Carolina and immediately upstream from the town of Newry, South Carolina. The Little River Dam has a
crest elevation of 815.0 feet AMSL and measures approximately 1,800 feet in length. The dam is a
homogeneous embankment constructed of compacted earthfill with a drainage blanket beneath the
downstream slope. South Carolina State Route 130 passes over the crest of the dam. Similar to Keowee
Dam and the Keowee saddle dikes, the Little River Dam features no innovative designs or construction
techniques. It was designed to operate in concert with the other impoundment structures to contain the
waters of Lake Keowee.
Saddle Dikes
In addition to the Keowee and Little River dams, Lake Keowee is also buttressed by a series of four
saddle dikes (designated A, B, C, D) with a design top elevation of 815 feet AMSL. The four saddle dikes
(see Figure 3.1) lie on the eastern rim of the Little River portion of the reservoir. The Saddle Dikes are
homogeneous embankments constructed of compacted earthfill. Saddle Dikes A and D were constructed
Brockington and Associates
77

with zoned internal drainage blankets (for seepage control) beneath their downstream slopes. Saddle
Dikes B and C lie above the full pond elevation and have no internal drainage blankets. Saddle Dike A
(Figure 3.20) has a maximum height of approximately 50 feet and a crest length of approximately 1,900
feet. Saddle Dikes B (225 feet in length) and C (350 feet) are approximately 15 feet high. Saddle Dike D
measures approximately 650 feet long and 40 feet in height. SC Hwy 130 is located on the crest of Saddle
Dike A. The crests of Saddle Dikes B, C, and D are covered with grass. The saddle dikes, similar to the
Keowee Dam and Little River Dam, are common compacted earthfill designs and feature no
extraordinary or innovative construction techniques or features. The dikes are designed to assist in the
reservoir's impoundment.
Oconee Nuclear Station Intake Dike
The Oconee Nuclear Station Intake Dike is located on the south side of the nuclear station at the end of an
excavated canal that leads east from Lake Keowee, approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the Keowee
powerhouse. The Intake Dike is a homogeneous embankment constructed of compacted earthfill. Like the
other dikes, it was constructed with a zoned internal drainage blanket beneath the downstream slope. The
crest of the dike is 825 AMSL and measures about 1,200 feet in length. It has a paved asphalt road on the
crest to provide access to the auxiliary structures at the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Brockington and Associates
73

Figure 3.1 Location of hydroelectric facilities at the Keowee Development.
Brockington and Associates
74

Figure 3.2 Keowee Powerhouse, tailrace, and transformer yards, as viewed from the crest of Keowee Dam.
Brockington and Associates
75

Figure 3.3 Keowee Powerhouse exterior, facing northeast.
Brockington and Associates
76

-k"O
f�
a
Figure 3.4 Keowee Powerhouse, siding detail, facing northeast.
Brockington and Associates
77

Figure 3.5 Keowee Powerhouse exterior, facing north.
Brockington and Associates
78

Figure 3.6 Keowee Powerhouse exterior, facing east.
Brockington and Associates
79

Figure 3.7 Keowee Powerhouse, east elevation, showing modified door.
Brockington and Associates
8o

tl !.
Figure 3.8 Keowee Powerhouse interior, tops of generating units.
Brockington and Associates
81

Figure 3.9 Keowee Powerhouse interior, showing ribbon windows.
Brockington and Associates
82

Figure 3.10 Keowee Powerhouse interior, below -grade access gallery, showing cylindrical stairwell.
Brockington and Associates
83

r
CAI
G GTI
HEARIS R QN`S ppINT
BFYpNr) UIS -15
SHE PATiN'G
CAUTION
OILY
S
IU FACES.
,
Figure 3.11 Keowee Powerhouse, showing concrete unit casing for Unit No. 2.
Brockington and Associates
B4

Figure 3.12 Keowee Unit No. 2, showing wicket gates.
Brockington and Associates
85

Figure 3.13 Keowee intake structure, facing north.
Brockington and Associates
80

Figure 3.14 Keowee Dam, with powerhouse on far right.
Brockington and Associates
87

Figure 3.15 Crest of Keowee Dam, facing east from near Oconee Nuclear Station.
Brockington and Associates
88

Figure 3.16 Keowee Spillway equipment, facing east.
Brockington and Associates
89

Figure 3.17 Keowee Spillway concrete gravity chute, facing south.
Brockington and Associates
96

Figure 3.18 Keowee Spillway, tainter gates, facing northeast.
Brockington and Associates

Figure 3.19 Little River Dam, facing north, State Route 130 on the left side of photo and running along crest of dam.
Brockington and Associates
92

Figure 3.20 Downstream slope of Saddle Dike A, State Route 130 visible on the crest of the dike; drainage blanket at the
left of photograph.
Brockington and Associates
93

3.3 Jocassee Development (SCDAH Resource 446 -0156)
The Jocassee Development is located approximately eleven miles upstream of Keowee Hydro Station (see
Figure 1.1). The development includes Lake Jocassee, the Jocassee Dam, two saddle dikes (designated 1
and 2), two adjacent intake structures, water conveyance tunnels, the powerhouse, and a gated spillway
(Figures 3.21- 3.23). The Jocassee Development has a much greater isolated feeling than the downstream
Keowee Development, which is located adjacent to the Oconee Nuclear Station. The Jocassee
Powerhouse sits below -grade at the base of Jocassee Dam; its switchyard is located approximately 1,200
feet to the southeast, and is largely hidden from view by a hillside. The switchyard is accessed via an
unpaved road that runs along the water's edge. The saddle dikes are also accessed via unpaved roads.
Saddle Dikes 1 and 2 are located in coves on the southern edge of Lake Jocassee.
The plant generates electricity through operation of four reversible pump /turbines that are
supplied water through the two intake structures and tunnels, typically during the day. During periods of
low demand, generally at night, the reversible turbines pump water from Lake Keowee back to Lake
Jocassee for energy storage. Lake Jocassee also serves as the lower reservoir for the Bad Creek
Hydroelectric Project (under separate license; FERC Project No. 2740). Lake Jocassee has an
approximate surface area of 7,980 acres at a full pond elevation. Because Jocassee Development operates
as a pump storage development, the reservoir can see a daily swing of four feet or more in lake level
during periods of high electrical demand.
3.3.1 Powerhouse
The Jocassee Powerhouse (Figures 3.24 -3.28) is located at the toe of the east abutment of Jocassee Dam;
it is immediately downstream of a rock -cut slope. The powerhouse is a semi - outdoor design, whereby the
coverings of the generating units and free - standing crane equipment are not located within a larger
powerhouse structure. This type of "semi- outdoor" powerhouse design had been proposed and
constructed by the industry as early as the 1910s (see Figure 2.3; Hay 1991) and was a common form
used in the late twentieth century. The USACE Lake Hartwell Powerhouse, completed in 1962 and
located downstream on the mainstem Savannah River, is another regional example of the outdoor type
powerhouse. Wallace Dam, a pumpback hydroelectric plant completed in 1980 by Georgia Power
Company, is another example.
While the powerhouse structure is entirely below - grade, the entrance to the facility is through a
small one - story, concrete structure located adjacent to the free - standing gantry crane. The building
consists of sloped concrete walls and a stone and mortar veneer. The entry contains a recessed metal and
glass door, with the sides of the building containing vertical fixed pane windows. The roof is flat with a
metal coping around the perimeter.
At the Jocassee Development, the four generating units are covered with steel casings (see
Figures 3.26- 3.27). The 420 -ton electrically operated gantry crane, used to service the generating units,
operates by sliding along parallel at -grade steel rails. Jocassee's four reversible pump /turbines are located
beneath the ground surface in the mass concrete substructure which has five individual levels. The
primary below grade service gallery has formed concrete walls and a concrete floor with smooth finishes.
Each of the four units are encased within large concrete cubicles. The lower galleries run along the
horizontal axix of the powerhouse substructure and also contain formed concrete walls and floors. These
galleries provide access to the discharge tunnels, electrical and other auxiliary service equipment.
Originally, the Jocassee Development was controlled at the powerhouse. Figure 2.37 provides a historical
photograph of the original control room; today the facility is operated remotely from Duke Energy
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Water flow into the four generating units is controlled by the wicket gates around the turbines for
generating power or for pumping water back through the tunnels to Lake Jocassee. There are two intake
Brockington and Associates
94

structures located on the reservoir rim near the east abutment of Jocassee Dam. The intakes are circular
structural steel and reinforced concrete with eight openings. A steel cylinder gate can be lowered into
each intake for dewatering the power tunnels. Each tunnel bifurcates upstream of the powerhouse into two
units to deliver water into each of the four generating units in the powerhouse. Jocassee does not have a
tailrace; water discharges are made into the uppermost reaches of Lake Keowee. The shoreline around
the lake at the Jocassee Development is buttressed with stone riprap.
3.3.2 Turbines and Generating Equipment
There are four reversible pump turbine units (Figures 3.29- 3.31), each connected to a generator motor,
located in the Jocassee Powerhouse. Figures 3.29 -3.31 provide photographs of the wheel pits and
operating floor equipment. The original authorized installed capacity of each unit was 153 MW for a total
of 612 MW. Duke Energy replaced the turbine runners for Units 3 and 4 in 2006 — 2007 and for Units 1
and 2 in 2011. The runner replacement increased the maximum hydraulic capacity of the development,
thus allowing for greater generation. The current installed capacity of Jocassee is 710.10 MW. Water
flow is controlled by the wicket gates around the turbines for generating power or pumping water back to
the reservoir. When it is generating power, the facility operates like a conventional hydroelectric station.
During off peak hours, typically at night, the turbines can reverse direction and pump water back up into
Lake Jocassee for energy storage. Voith Hydro of York, Pennsylvania manufactured the turbines and
General Electric manufactured the generators. Both companies have a long history with the design and
manufacture of hydromechanical equipment. Neither the turbines or the generators at Jocassee exhibit
engineering features divergent from their contemporaries.
Power from each Jocassee unit is fed into the 230 kV transmission system via a dedicated step -up
transformers. The Units 1, 3, and 4 GSU transformers are two winding transformers rated at 130/14.4
kV. The Unit 2 transformer is a three winding transformer rated at 230/14.4/14/4 kV. Interconnection
with the electrical grid is made in the adjacent Jocassee 230 kV switchyard.
3.3.3 Dams and Impoundment
Jocassee Dam
Jocassee Dam is 385 feet high and measures 1,800 feet in length (Figures 3.32- 3.33). The crest of the dam
is about 30 feet wide at elevation 1,125 feet AMSL. It is a zoned embankment with an earthen core,
transitional filter, and rockfilled shells. The dam contains two projections or "benches" on the
downstream slope, one of which includes an access road to the powerhouse. The dam axis is slightly
curved into the reservoir, a common design feature for higher dams to provide additional structural
support. The dam includes two circular intake structures (Figure 3.34) with eight openings that divert
water to the generating units. The flow of water may be closed by cylindrical steel gates. These intake
structures are identical in design to those at the Keowee Development.
Spillway
The Jocassee Development contains a service spillway approximately 1,800 feet southwest of the main
dam. The ogee type spillway (Figures 3.35 -3.36) is of mass concrete and the channel measures
approximately 50 feet in width. The concrete channel runs the full length between the tainter gates at
Lake Jocassee to outlet at Lake Keowee. There are two Tainter gates (38 -by -33 feet) that rotate upward
from concrete ogees about trunnions anchored in massive concrete blocks on each spillway wingwall and
on a center separation wall. The hoists are electric motor driven with air compressor backup power, but
can be operated manually by hand cranks if electric service is interrupted. The spillway aprons and walls
are concrete -lined leading to a concrete flip bucket located downstream of the spillway to provide for
energy dissipation. The outlet channel downstream of the flip bucket is a concrete lined trapezoidal
channel leading to a set of four culverts that pass under the power plant access road. The remaining
channel extending below the culvert is a natural ravine leading to Lake Keowee. The spillway is designed
for use in emergency overflow scenarios.
Brockington and Associates
95

Saddle Dikes
There are two homogeneous rolled earthfill saddle dikes (see Figure 3.21), west of Jocassee Dam, which
facilitate the impoundment of Lake Jocassee. Saddle Dike 1 (Figure 3.37) is approximately 3,000 feet
southwest of Jocassee Dam and measures approximately 35 feet high and 825 feet long at the crest.
Saddle Dike 2 is located approximately 8,000 feet west of Jocassee Dam and measures approximately 25
feet high and 500 feet long. Both dikes are covered in grass on the downstream side and are buttressed
with a stone riprap on the lake side for wave protection. The saddle dikes are similar in construction to
those of the Keowee Development and other contemporary constructions.
Brockington and Associates
H

Figure 3.21 Hydroelectric facilities at Jocassee Development.
Brockington and Associates
97

Figure 3.22 Jocassee Development from atop main dam, facing south (see Figure 2.34 for similar view taken in 1974).
Brockington and Associates
98

Figure 3.23 Lake Jocassee, showing Bad Creek Project (under separate FERC license) in center background.
Brockington and Associates
H

Figure 3.24 Jocassee Powerhouse, entrance to the left, facing east.
Brockington and Associates
100
ARM—
Figure 3.24 Jocassee Powerhouse, entrance to the left, facing east.
Brockington and Associates
100

Figure 3.25 Jocassee Powerhouse entrance, facing north.
Brockington and Associates
101

Figure 3.26 Jocassee Powerhouse, facing east, showing free- standing gantry crane.
Brockington and Associates
102

Figure 3.27 Jocassee Powerhouse, facing east, showing tops of generating units.
Brockington and Associates
103

Figure 3.28 Jocassee Powerhouse substructure, south side at water discharge.
Brockington and Associates
104

Figure 3.29 Jocassee Powerhouse, generating floor, looking east, Unit 2 concrete casing on the right.
Brockington and Associates
105

Figure 3.30 Jocassee Unit No. 2 nameplate.
Brockington and Associates
IBB

Figure 3.31 Jocassee Unit No. 2.
Brockington and Associates
107

Figure 3.32 Jocassee Dam, downstream slope near powerhouse, facing north.
Brockington and Associates
108

Figure 3.33 Lake side of Jocassee Dam, showing rip -rap facing. Photo looking west.
Brockington and Associates
100

Figure 3.34 Jocassee Development, intake structures, facing east.
Brockington and Associates
110

Figure 3.35 Jocassee Spillway chute, facing south.
Brockington and Associates
III

Figure 3.36 Jocassee Spillway, tainter gates.
i
Brockington and Associates
112
. °r
i

Figure 3.37 Saddle Dike 1, in background of photograph, facing west.
Brockington and Associates
113

4.0 NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric
Project
4.1 NRHP Evaluation and Recommendations
The contextual information in Chapter 2 suggests a number of generalizations that apply to hydroelectric
plants as a group. In terms of function and use, facilities such as the Keowee - Toxaway Project are
inherently industrial in nature, whether they were originally designed for hydroelectric production, were
adapted from hydro mechanical applications, or components of a broader generation system. In terms of
property type, hydroelectric plants are energy facilities, which combine specialized structures and
machinery to produce a particular kind of energy. In terms of areas of significance, hydroelectric plants
are potentially significant to both engineering and industry, with secondary significance to commerce and
architecture. Hydroelectric plants have the potential for significance at the local, state, or even national
level, depending on their level of technical innovation or scope of market served. The facilities also have
the potential for a fairly high level of physical integrity, since so many historic hydroelectric plants still
serve their original function and industry advancements typically do not warrant drastic overhaul of
hydroelectric systems (Hay 1991).
The Keowee - Toxaway Project consists of two hydroelectric developments, both of which were
planned, designed, constructed, and implemented as integrated and complementary elements of Duke
Energy's broader Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project. Collectively, the two hydro developments were not
fully operational until 1975 when Jocassee Units 3 and 4 went into commercial operation.
The NRHP uses 50 years of age as a guideline to evaluated the historic significance of resources.
According to Sherfy and Luce (1998: 1), the passage of time is necessary in order to apply the adjective
historic and to ensure the adequate perspective. The Keowee - Toxaway Project is not yet 50 years of age
and, therefore, is not considered a historic resource. Properties less than 50 years of age may be
considered eligible for listing in the NRHP if they rise to a level of "exceptional significance," defined as
Criteria Consideration G. To determine whether properties qualify as exceptionally significant, Sherfy
and Luce (1998) emphasize the importance of a historic context. The historic context for the Keowee-
Toxaway Hydroelectric Project was presented in Chapter 2. Importantly, to be be eligible for listing in
the NRHP under Criteria Consideration G, a resource must first possess significance under one of the four
primary evaluation criteria (A, B, C, and D). The following paragraphs provide an evaluation of the
Keowee - Toxaway Project based on these criteria.
The Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project possesses significance under Criterion A,
"associations with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history."
As discussed in Chapter 2, the vast majority of hydroelectric projects constructed during the mid -
twentieth century were initiated by the federal government as multi - purpose flood control efforts in which
hydropower was a beneficial byproduct and not the sole authorized purpose. For investor -owned utilities,
between World War II and the energy crisis of the 1970s, hydropower was used to balance base loads and
to support an increasing need for peaking power.
The Keowee and Jocassee developments were designed to help balance the base load generation
of thermoelectric generating facilities, and in the case of Keowee, the facility later served as a backup
power supply for Oconee Nuclear Station. The hydropower developments were planned and constructed
as part of a comprehensive long -range multi- component power generation system (the Keowee - Toxaway
Energy Project) that included thermoelectric and future pumped- storage projects, the most recent
component of which was completed in 1991. As indicated by historical research, the hydroelectric
facilities were designed to complement a broader energy project, and were not economically viable
Brockington and Associates
114

entities without a larger base load to support. For its association with that broader Energy Project, the
Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project possesses significant associations with patterns of industrial
history as it represents a shift in the electrity industry for independent, but mutually supporting sources of
power. However, these historical associations do not reach the level of "exceptional significance" as to
render them eligible under Criteria Consideration G, for properties less than 50 years of age.
The Keowee - Toxaway Engery Project was a major undertaking for Duke Power. The
thermoelectric base load was supplied by the Oconee Nuclear Station, the first wholly -owned nuclear
facility for Duke Power. The Energy Project received two awards, both of which complemented ability of
the company to develop a large hydro - thermal power generation project while also protecting and
enhancing the local environment. The Energy Project was undertaken at a time of increasing
environmental awareness and legislation, and thus was an important effort to accommodate both industry
and the environment. The hydroelectric component of the Energy Project represented the largest portion
of the of the environmental footprint. Therefore, the Project has a significant association with patterns of
social history in that its early plans incorporated public concerns for the environment and corporate
stewardship of the area's natural resources. However, these historical associations do not reach the level
of "exceptional significance" as to render them eligible under Criteria Consideration G, for properties less
than 50 years of age.
The Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project does not possess significance under Criterion B,
"associations with persons significant in our past." The historical research conducted for this evaluation
did not idenfity significant individuals associated with the Project's planning, construction, or
development.
The Kewowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project does not exhibit notable "physical design or
construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork"
and therefore does not possess significance under Criterion C. The functional structures at the Keowee
Development and Jocassee Development, including the powerhouses (and powerhouse entry for
Jocassee), spillways, intake structures, dams, dikes, and transformer yards, are common features and all
work in coordination with each other for a primary purpose, generating power. The facilities retain their
architectural /engineering integrity; minimal changes have been made to the powerhouses or the associated
hydroelectric structures. The modifications at each development, such as upgrading of equipment or small
spacial enclosures for modern office space, are typical of industrial facilities and do not detract from the
overall purpose or design, which is to generate electricity. The lack of significant changes is not unusual
for this resource type; hydroelectric facilities as a broader group tend to retain a high degree of integrity
(Hay 1991).
Keowee was a simple two -unit development, with minimal peaking capacity. For Jocassee, the
technology of pumped- storage hydro had already been well - established by the late 1960s when
construction began on the development. Pumped- storage developments, like Jocassee, were viewed as a
viable option for balancing the base loads generated at large thermoelectric plants. The Keowee - Toxaway
hydroelectric structures contain neither innovative nor exceptional technologies or construction methods
that deviated from their hydroelectric contemporaries.
The Keowee - Toxaway Project does not appear to meet Criterion D; the Project has not yielded
and is not likely to yield "information important in prehistory or history."
While the Keowee - Toxaway Project appears to possess significance under Criterion A for its
historical associations with the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project, it does not meet the threshold of
"exceptional significance" to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion Consideration
G. Sherfy and Luce (1998) provide such examples as Cape Caneveral, Apollo Mission Control, and other
Brockington and Associates
115

nationally significant properties that were deemed to be exceptionally significance. The Keowee-
Toxaway Project is not yet 50 years of age, but collectively the two hydroelectric developments will reach
that benchmark in 2022. The structures will likely meet the criteria for listing once they reach 50 years of
age. Duke Energy will assess the structures (e.g., those licensed under FERC No. 2503) again at that time
to confirm this determination and also to record any changes made in the interim.
Brockington and Associates
IIB

References Cited
36 CFR 60.4
National Register of Historic Places: Criteria For Evaluation." Code of Federal Regulations Title 36,
Pt. 60.4.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
1997 Landmarks in Mechanical Engineering. Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, Indiana.
Anderson, David E., J. W. Joseph, James E. Cobb, Mary Beth Reed, and Joseph Schuldenrein
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area, Volume 11. Prepared for
Savannah District, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Augusta Chronicle
1966 "Power Projects Get Big Boost From Compromise." July 21, 1966.
Ball, Thomas Fauntleroy
1934 South Carolina Goes into the Power Business. Public Utilities Fortnightly. August 30.
Bell, Louis
1895 Electricity in Textile Manufacturing. Cassier's Magazine, February 1895.
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
2012 History of the South Atlantic Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1945 -2011.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division.
Campbell, A. P., A. W. Reed, J. P. Garvin, and N. D. Urquhart
1931 Saluda Development is Rich in New Engineering Features. The Electric Journal, May.
Carlton, David L.
1982 Mill and Town in South Carolina, 1880 -1920. Louisiana State University Press, Baton
Rouge.
Chaplin, Joyce E.
1993 An Anxious Pursuit: Agricultural Innovation and Modernity in the Lower South, 1730 -1815.
University of North Caroline Press, Chapel Hill.
Dames and Moore
1981 National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study: An Assessment of Hydroelectric Pumped
Storage. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir,
Virginia.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
2011 Pre- Application Document: Keowee- Toxaway Project, FERC No. 1888.Volumes I and 2.
Prepared June 1, 2009. Internet online at http://www.duke-energy.com/keowee-toxaway-
relicensing/noi-pad. asp.
Duke Power Company
1965 "Duke Power Company Electric Service in the Piedmont Carolinas, December 31, 1965."
Brockington and Associates
117

Record Group 34, Historical Miscellany, Duke Energy Corporate Archives, Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Duke Power Company
1975 The Keowee- Toxaway Project. Nomination to the American Society of Civil Engineers for the
1975 Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award. On file at the Duke Energy Archives,
Charlotte, NC.
Durden, Robert F.
1999 Electrifying the Piedmont Carolinas: The Beginning of the Duke Power Company, 1904-
1925. Part 1. In The North Carolina Historical Review, October, 410 -440.
2000 Electrifying the Piedmont Carolinas: The Beginning of the Duke Power Company, 1904-
1925. Part 2. In The North Carolina Historical Review, January, 54 -89.
2001 Electrifying the Piedmont Carolinas: The Duke Power Company, 1904 -1997. Carolina
Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Electrical World
1910 W. S. Lee. 24 March.
1915 A Hydroelectric Plant on the Savannah River. November 20.
1965 "Under Pressure, Udall Re- Weighs Stand on Duke Power Projects." August 2.
Garner, George
1928 South Carolina's $20,000,000 Hydro - Electric Development Under Way. Manufacturers
Record. 8 March.
Grantham, Dewey W.
1994 The South in Modern America: A Region at Odds. HarperCollins, New York.
Handbook of South Carolina: Resources, Institutions, and Industries of the State
1907 The State Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Immigration, Columbia.
Hay, Duncan E.
1991 Hydroelectric Development in the United States 1880 -1940. Volumes I and 1I. Edison
Electric Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kovacik, Charles F., and John J. Winberry
1989 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Larsen, Christian L.
1947 South Carolina's Resources: A Study in Public Administration. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia.
Leuchtenberg, William E.
1963 Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932 -1940. Harper Torchbooks, New York.
Maynor, Joe
1979 Duke Power: The First Seventy -Five Years. Charlotte, NC: Duke Power Company.
Brockington and Associates
118

Morrison, Samuel Eliot and Henry Steele Commager
1937 The Growth of the American Republic. Oxford University Press, New York.
National Park Service
1995 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S.
Department of the Interior: Washington, D.C.
Norwood, Gus
1990 Gift of the Rivers. Power for the People of the Southeast: A History of the Southeastern
Power Administration. U.S. Department of Energy, Southeastern Power Administration:
Elberton, GA.
Savage, Henry, Jr.
1973 The Revolution in Electric Power. In Ernest M. Lander, Jr. and Robert K. Ackerman, eds.,
Perspectives in South Carolina History: The First 300 Years. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia.
Savage, Beth, and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr.
1959 The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce
1998 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that
Have Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years. U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Washington, DC.
Simkins, Francis Butler
1953 The History of the South. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
State Development Board
1955 Resources of South Carolina. Bulletin No. 22. Columbia.
Taylor, William T. and Daniel H. Braymer
1917 American Hydroelectric Practice. McGraw -Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
Tindall, George B.
1967 The Emergence of the New South 1913 -1945. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
1985 Engineering and Design: Hydropower
DC.
Williams, Carroll E.
Engineer Manual No. 1110 -2 -1701. Washington,
1931 Saluda Power Development. Manufacturers Record, February 19.
Brockington and Associates
119

Appendix A
South Carolina State Survey Forms

Statewide Survey of Historic Properties //
State Historic Preservation Office
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
8301 Parklane Rd.
Columbia, SC 29223 -4905 (803) 896 -6100
Intensive Documentation Form
Identification
1967
Historic
Keowee Hydroelectric Development
Common
Keowee Hydroelectric Development
Address /Location:
Duke Power
City: Pickens
Vicinity of: Six Mile
Ownership: Corporate /Duke Energy
Historical Industry/Processing /Extraction
Current Industry/Processing /Extraction
National Register of Historic Places
SHPO National Register
Notes on National Register
Other Designation:
Property Description
Construction
1967
Alteration
Roof Features
Shape:
uniform pitch
Materials:
other metal
Construction
steel
Exterior Walls:
other
Foundation: mass concrete
County:
Category:
Control Number: U / 77 /373-0155
Status County No Site No
Quad Name: Old Pickens
Tax Map
Pickens
Structure
Commercial 2 -part commercial block
Historic Core rectangular
Porch Features
Porch Width: n/a
Shape: n/a
4038 -00 -43 -3481
Stories: other
Significant Architectural: The Keowee Development includes the Keowee Powerhouse, Keowee Dam, the Little River Dam, four saddle dikes
(designated A, B, C, D), the Oconee Nuclear Station intake dike, a gated concrete ogee spillway, and an intake structure. The Keowee Powerhouse
is a still framed building with a striated steel exterior, situated atop a mass monolithic concrete substructure. Inside are two conventional generating
units with a total nameplate capacity of 157.5 megawatts. The powerhouse is located near the east abutment of the Keowee Dam, a homogenous
earth - filled structure impounding Lake Keowee. Water to the turbines is fed through a single steel intake structure. The hydroelectric development
also includes four saddle dikes and the Little River Dam, which are located along State Route 130 approximately four miles southeast of the
Keowee Powerhouse. Together, these saddle dikes and dams are the primary structures impounding the Keowee and Little rivers, forming Lake
Keowee. The gated concrete Keowee Spillway is located east of the powerhouse and extends down the slope of the Keowee Dam. Other ancillary
features of the Keowee Development, such as transformer yards, associated powerlines, and paved parking lots are located between the Keowee
Powerhouse and the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Alterations: A small portion of the powerhouse interior has been enclosed to accommodate office and computer terminal space.
Architect(s) /Builder(s): Duke Power Company

South Carolina Statewide Survey of Historic Properties
Intensive Documentation Form
Historical Information
Page 2
Site 373 -0155
Historical Information: The 157.5 MW Keowee Development is located on the Keowee River and the Little River in Pickens and Oconee counties,
South Carolina. Construction of the development began in 1967 and was officially completed in 1971 when its two generating units went into
commercial operation. Planning for the Keowee Hydroelectric Development, in conjunction with the upstream Jocassee Pumped Storage
Development, began during the early 1960s. The two hydro projects were licensed together by the Federal Power Commission (now the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) in 1966. Together the two hydroelectric plants were designed, constructed, and implemented to help balance the
base load nuclear power generated at the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Source: NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development. Brockington and Associates, Inc. (2012)
Photographs Use Grid for Sketching
Roll No. Neg. No. View of
1 1
Keowee Development from dam
1 2
Keowee Powerhouse, facing northeast
1 3
Keowee Powerhouse, generating floor
1 4
Keowee Intake Structure, facing north
1 5
Keowee Dam, facing north
1 6
Keowee Spillway, facing south
1 7
Keowee Saddle Dike, facing south
Program Management
Recorded by: Patricia Stallings, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Date Recorded: 04/04/2012

Statewide Survey of Historic Properties//
State Historic Preservation Office
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
8301 Parklane Rd.
Columbia, SC 292234905 (803) 896 -6100
Intensive Documentation Form
Identification
Historic
Jocassee Hydroelectric Development
Common
Jocassee Hydroelectric Development
Address /Location:
Duke Power
City: Pickens County:
Vicinity of: Holly Springs
Ownership: Corporate /Duke Energy Category:
Historical Industry/Processing/Extraction
Current Industry/Processing /Extraction
National Register of Historic Places
SHPO National Register
Notes on National Register
Other Designation:
Property Description
Construction 1973
Alteration
Roof Features
Shape: n/a
Materials: n/a
Construction other
Control Number: U / 77 /446-0156
Status County No Site No
Quad Name: Salem
Tax Map 4124 -00 -63 -0129
Pickens
structure
Commercial 1 -part commercial block
Historic Core rectangular
Porch Features
Porch Width: n/a
Shape: n/a
Exterior Walls: stone veneer on entryway, powerhouse structure entirely below ground.
Foundation: mass concrete substructure
Stories: 5 (below ground)
Significant Architectural: The Jocassee Development is located approximately eleven miles upstream of Keowee Hydro Station. The
development includes Lake Jocassee, the Jocassee Dam, two saddle dikes (designated 1 and 2), two adjacent intake structures, water
conveyance tunnels, the powerhouse, and a gated spillway. The Jocassee Powerhouse represents the "outdoor" powerhouse design, first
advocated by engineers in the 1920s. This type of design places the generating units below - grade, with the gantry cranes and other servicing
equipment outside. While the powerhouse structure itself is entirely below - grade, the entrance to the facility is a small one -story, concrete structure
located adjacent to the free standing gantry crane. The building consists of sloped concrete walls and a stone and mortar veneer. The entry
contains a recessed metal and glass door, with the sides of the building containing vertical fixed pane windows. The roof is flat with a metal coping
around the perimeter. The powerhouse features four reversible pump turbines with an installed capacity of 710.10 megawatts. The switchyard is
located approximately 1,200 feet to the southeast of the powerhouse, and is largely hidden from view by a hillside. Jocassee Dam is a zone
embankment dam with an earthen core, transitional filter and rock filled shells. It includes two circular intake structures with eight openings to divert
water to the generating units. The homogenous earth filled saddle dikes are located in coves on the southern edge of Lake Jocassee.
Alterations: The original authorized installed capacity of each unit was 153 MW for a total of 612 MW. Duke Energy replaced the turbine runners
for Units 3 and 4 in 2006 — 2007 and for Units 1 and 2 in 2011. The runner replacement increased the maximum hydraulic capacity of the
development, thus allowing for greater generation.
Architect(s) /Builder(s): Duke Power Company

South Carolina Statewide Survey of Historic Properties
Intensive Documentation Form
Historical Information
Page 2
Site 446 -0156
Historical Information: Planning for the Jocassee Hydroelectric Development, in conjunction with the downstream Keowee Hydroelectric
Development, began during the early 1960s. The two hydro projects were licensed together by the Federal Power Commission (now the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) in 1966. Together the two hydroelectric plants were designed, constructed, and implemented to help balance the
base load nuclear power generated at the Oconee Nuclear Station. Commercial operation of the Jocassee Development began in 1973 when Units
1 and 2 came online; Units 3 and 4 came online in 1975. The Jocassee Development operates as a pump- storage facility, in that Lake Jocassee is
used for energy storage and, during times of high electrical demand, water is released through the turbines for generation. In off -peak hours,
water can be drawn back through the reversible turbines for storage in Lake Jocassee. Pumped storage technology was realized as during the
early 1900s, but not commonly used in the United States until the technology was perfected in the 1950s.
Source of NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development. Brockington and Associates, Inc. (2012)
Photographs Use Grid for Sketching
Roll No. Neg. No. View of
1 1 Jocassee Hydroelectric Development, from atop dam
1 2 Jocassee Powerhouse entry and gantry crane, facing east
1 3 Jocassee Powerhouse interior, generating floor
1 4 Jocassee Dam, facing north
1 5 Jocassee Intake Structures, facing east
1 6 Jocassee Spillway, facing south
Program Management
Recorded by: Patricia Stallings, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Date Recorded: 04/05/2012

Appendix B
Consultation

Page 1 of 1
From: Garrison, Brett A
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:57 AM
To: 'Dolores.HaII @ncdcr.gov'; 'dobrasko @scdah.state.sc.us'; 'Tyler Howe'
Subject: Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensee
for the Keowee- Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). In accordance with the study plan
prepared for the relicensing effort, Duke Energy conducted an assessment of the hydro structures
associated with the Project to determine if they were eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
In accordance with the study plan, Duke is submitting the following draft report for review and
comment: "NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development."
This document was prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy.
The report has been uploaded to the KTREL.com website. It is located in the folder Cultural
RC> Cultural Confidential Information> Hydro Structures NRHP. Please make any comments you may
have to the document by checking the document out and using "track changes." Due to the size of the
Word document, it had to be split into four parts for uploading. A PDF of the document was also
uploaded so you can reference any pictures or figures in the original formatting.
Please provide any comments you have by September 17, 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact me
at 864.873.4032 should you have any questions or comments or if you have any issues accessing the
documents.
Thank you.
Brett A. Garrison
Duke Energy Lake Services/ South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway Salem, SC 29676
Office 864.873.4032 1 Cell 704.999.49011 Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
file: //Y:\Brett Garrison \Relicensing\Hydro Assessment Study\Hydro Assessment draft to ... 10/29/2012

f"
-: Duke
August 20, 2012
Catawba Indian Nation
Wenonah Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
1536 Tom Steven Rd
Rock Hill, SC 29730
WATER STRATEGYAND SERVICES
Duke Energy Corporadon
526 South Church Street
Charlotte NC 28202
Ma+hng Address
EC12Y /P0 Box 1006
Charlotte NC 28201 -1006
Subject: Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503)
NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development Draft Report
Dear Ms. Haire
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licensee for the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). In
accordance with the study plan prepared for the relicensing effort, Duke Energy conducted an
assessment of the hydro structures associated with the Project to determine if they were eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with the study plan, Duke Energy is submitting the following draft report for
review and comment:
"NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Development."
This document was prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy.
Please provide any comments you have by September 17, 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at 864.873.4032 or Brett.Garrison @duke- energy.com should you have any questions or
comments. Please mail all comments regarding this report to the following address:
Brett Garrison
Duke Energy /South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway
Salem, SC 29676
mw duke -emp cm

Thank you in advance for your review and comments.
Sincerely,
4
_c
Brett A. Garrison
Duke Energy Carolinas
Enclosures: NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee- Toxaway Hydroelectric Development
cc w/o enclosures: Jen Huff, Duke Energy

Duke
Energy,
August 20, 2012
Ms. Patricia Leppert
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 24026
WATER STRATEGYAND SERVICES
Duke Energy Corporadon
526 South Chmch Sheet
Charlotte NC 26202
Mailing Address
EC12Y /P0 Box 1006
Charlotte NC 28201 1006
Subject: Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503)
NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development Draft Report
Dear Ms Leppert.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licensee for the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). In
accordance with the study plan prepared for the relicensing effort, Duke Energy conducted an
assessment of the hydro structures associated with the Project to determine if they were eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with the study plan, Duke Energy is submitting the following draft report for
review and comment:
"NRHPEvaluation of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Development."
This document was prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy.
Please provide any comments you have by September 17, 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at 864.873.4032 or Brett.Garrison @duke- energy.com should you have any questions or
comments. Please mail all comments regarding this report to the following address:
Brett Garrison
Duke Energy /South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway
Salem, SC 29676
mw duke -enaW coin

Thank you in advance for your review and comments.
Sincerely,
Brett A. Garrison
Duke Energy Carolinas
Enclosures: NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development
cc w/o enclosures: Jen Huff, Duke Energy

Garrison, Brett A
From: Dobrasko, Rebekah [Dobrasko @SCDAH.STATE. SC. US]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: Garrison, Brett A
Subject: RE: Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation
Brett,
Our office has had the chance to review the draft NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development
as part of the overall relicensing process for the Keowee - Toxaway Project in Oconee and Pickens Counties, South
Carolina. The report is well- written and illustrated, and we have very few comments on the text itself. Because my
computer is so slow with downloading large documents, the few suggested changes I have for the document are related
below. I also have some overall comments and questions about the next steps on this report.
pg. 4, 1965: Define "FPC"
pg 10, third paragraph: Should "Energy Crisis" be capitalized?
1. With the final report, our office requests the completed survey cards and a hard copy of the report for the Statewide
Survey files here at the State Archives. Page 2 of the report references that the original survey cards have been provided
to us; we do not have those cards.
2. What are the proposed boundaries of the surveyed resources? These should be marked on a USGS topographic map
for both Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee.
3. Why are the lakes themselves not considered in this evaluation? They are a very significant resource on the
landscape and I think would be a contributing resource to the significance of both the Keowee and Jocassee
developments.
4. Is there a specific component of significance of the two properties under National Register Criterion A? I would
suggest significance in the areas of industry and engineering. Duke Energy and /or Brockington and Associates may
suggest additional aspects of significance.
5. Does Duke Energy agree with the findings of this report? We request that Duke Energy provide official
correspondence to our office on this report, asking our concurrence with determinations of eligibility.
If you have any questions, just let me know!
Rebekah
Rebekah Dobrasko, Supervisor
Compliance, Tax Incentives, and Survey
State Historic Preservation Office
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
8301 Parklane Road
Columbia, SC 29223
803.896.6183 [telephone]
803.896.6167 [fax]
From: Garrison, Brett A [mailto: Brett .Garrison@aduke- energy.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:57 AM

To: [e-mail]; Dobrasko, Rebekah; Tyler Howe
Subject: Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensee for the
Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). In accordance with the study plan prepared for the
relicensing effort, Duke Energy conducted an assessment of the hydro structures associated with the Project
to determine if they were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with the study plan, Duke is submitting the following draft report for review and comment:
"NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development."
This document was prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy.
The report has been uploaded to the KTREL.com website. It is located in the folder Cultural RC> Cultural
Confidential Information> Hydro Structures NRHP. Please make any comments you may have to the document
by checking the document out and using "track changes." Due to the size of the Word document, it had to be
split into four parts for uploading. A PDF of the document was also uploaded so you can reference any
pictures or figures in the original formatting.
Please provide any comments you have by September 17, 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
864.873.4032 should you have any questions or comments or if you have any issues accessing the documents.
Thank you.
Brett A. Garrison
Duke Energy Lake Services/ South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway Salem, SC 29676
Office 864.873.4032 1 Cell 704.999.4901 1 Fax [phone]
brett.-garrison@duke-ener-?V.com

Garrison, Brett A
From: Hall, Dolores [dolores.hall @ncdcr.gov)
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 3:27 PM
To: Garrison, Brett A
Subject: RE: Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation
Brett:
I have reviewed the Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation report and find it to be well- written and informative.
I offer no corrections or additions. I believe we agreed that the assessment of eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places would be left to the South Carolina SHPO office as the facilities are located in their state.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Dolores A. Hall
Deputy State Archaeologist - Land
Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
(919) 807 -6553
(919) 715 -2671 (Fax)
As of October 22, 2008, my new email address is dolores.hall@ncdcr.00v
E -Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Garrison, Brett A [mailto:Brett.Garrison @duke- energy.coml
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:57 AM
To: Hall, Dolores; dobrasko0scdah.state.sc.us; Tyler Howe
Subject: Keowee - Toxaway Relicensing: NRHP Evaluation
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensee for the
Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). In accordance with the study plan prepared for the
relicensing effort, Duke Energy conducted an assessment of the hydro structures associated with the Project
to determine if they were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
In accordance with the study plan, Duke is submitting the following draft report for review and comment:
"NRHP Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric Development."
This document was prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy.
The report has been uploaded to the KTREL.com website. It is located in the folder Cultural RC> Cultural
Confidential Information> Hydro Structures NRHP. Please make any comments you may have to the document
by checking the document out and using "track changes." Due to the size of the Word document, it had to be
split into four parts for uploading. A PDF of the document was also uploaded so you can reference any
pictures or figures in the original formatting.
Please provide any comments you have by September 17, 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
864.873.4032 should you have any questions or comments or if you have any issues accessing the documents.

Thank you.
Brett A. Garrison
Duke Energy Lake Services/ South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway Salem, SC 29676
Office 864.873.4032 1 Cell 704.999.49011 Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1538 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803 - 328 -2427
Fax 803 - 328 -5791
September 5; 2412
Attention: Brett Garrison
Duke Energy /South Lake
8133 Rochester Highway
Salem, SC 29676
Re. THPO # TCNS# Project Description
2U12 -5-1 Keowee- i oxaway Hyaroeiectnc Project FERt, No. 2bUa Deveiopment Urart Report
Oscar Mr. Garr i
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native
American artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground
disturbance phase of'this projectt.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Totherow at 803 - 328 -2427 ext. 226, or e-
mail [e-mail].
Sincerely,
r
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal! listoric Preservation Cfficer

20120910 -3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/10/2012
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
September 10, 2012
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 2503 -147- South Carolina
Keowee - Toxaway Project
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Brett Garrison
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
8133 Rochester Highway
Salem, SC 29676
Subject: National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of the Keowee-
Toxaway Hydroelectric Development
Dear Mr. Garrison:
Thank you for your letter dated August 20, 2012, providing the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) with a copy of the draft "National
Register of Historic Places Evaluation of the Keowee - Toxaway Hydroelectric
Project," dated August 2012. This report was prepared pursuant to Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC's (Duke) Proposed Study Plan, approved and modified per the
Director, Office of Energy Project's Study Plan Determination letter, dated
January 27, 2012.
In your letter, you request our comments on the report by
September 17, 2012. We acknowledge the thoroughness of the report; however,
there are components of the report that should be corrected or clarified, which we
discuss below.
Section 1.0, page 1, mentions a programmatic agreement (PA) executed on
May 9, 2007 for Duke's shoreline management plan, which the Commission
approved.' To avoid confusion between relicensing the Keowee - Toxway Project
and a separate matter under the Commission's Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance, please remove from the report any reference to
this PA.
Section 1.0, page 1, identifies the area of potential effects (APE) as
"Project- related architectural and engineering components." According to the
'119 FERC ¶ 62,165 (2007).

20120910 -3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/10/2012
Project No. 2503 -147 2
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (Advisory Council) regulations at 36
C.F.R. section 800.16 (d), the APE means the geographic area or areas within
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character
or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. Because the Cultural
Resources Work Groupz has defined, and agreed upon, the project's APE on
October 19, 2010, we recommend the report revise the APE accordingly. The
agreed -upon APE is as follows: The APE for the Project is defined as lands
within the Project boundary and lands affected by Project operations. This
includes lands within the full pond elevation of each reservoir, Project recreational
access areas, the islands within the reservoirs, and additional lands associated with
each powerhouse and dam complex.
Section 1.2, page 2, indicates that a South Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (South Carolina SHPO) Historic Resource Form was
completed for each facility and that copies of the forms are provided in
Appendix A. However, the appendix contains only the resume of the principal
investigator. Please ensure the final report contains copies of the South Carolina
SHPO Historic Resource Forms.
Section 3 has different locations for the Keowee powerhouse in relation to
the non - project Oconee Nuclear Station. For example, Section 3.1 states the
Keowee development serves as a power supply for the Oconee Nuclear Station,
located approximately 3,700 feet west of the Keowee powerhouse. Section 3.2
states the Keowee powerhouse is located approximately 3,700 feet east of the
Oconee Nuclear Station. Please ensure the location of project facilities in relation
to the Oconee Nuclear Station is consistent. Our comment also applies to the
location of the Oconee Nuclear Station intake dike.
The Executive Summary and Section 4.0, page 113, states that "the
Keowee - Toxaway Project is not yet 50 years of age, but collectively the two
hydroelectric developments will reach that benchmark in 2025, when the
comprehensive Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project will also have reached 50 years
of age." Since construction of the Keowee development was completed in 1971
and construction of the Jocassee development was completed in 1972, the 50 -year
z On August 11, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Restricted Service List for the Keowee - Toxaway Project that identified entities to
participate in the consultation for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. The restricted service list is comprised of the Advisory Council, Duke, South
Carolina Archives & History Center, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the
Catawba Indian Nation, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. Staff is a participant in the Cultural
Resources Work Group.

20120910 -3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/10/2012
Project No. 2503 -147
benchmarks should be 2021 and 2022, respectively, for the developments. With
regard to the last phrase, "when the comprehensive Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project will also have reached 50 years of age," the report mistakenly combines
relicensing the Keowee - Toxaway Project with the Oconee Nuclear Station, and
identifies it as the Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project. Please remove Keowee-
Toxaway Energy Project from the final report, including the aforementioned last
phrase.
Section 4.0, page 113, third paragraph, combines the project facilities for
the Keowee development and the Jocassee development and concludes the
facilities do not possess significance under Criterion C. We do not find where the
powerhouses are identified in this paragraph. Please make a finding as to whether
the Keowee powerhouse and the Jocassee powerhouse possess significance under
any of the criteria. Also, this paragraph mentions the transformer yards; however,
this particular project facility is not listed in Section 1.0. Please clarify this
discrepancy.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Patti
Leppert at (202) 502 -6034, or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Mark Pawlowski, Chief
South Branch
Division of Hydropower Licensing
cc: Public Files

Responses to Agency Comments
Comments are summarized with responses to comments provided immediately after. The
original comments are included in this Appendix B.
SCDAH Comments:
Comment: Define "FPC" on pg 4.
Response: FPC was previously defined in the first paragraph on page 1.
Comment: On pg 10, third paragraph, should "Energy Crisis" be capitalized?
Response: Corrected the report to use lower case.
Comment: 1. The completed survey cards and a hard copy of the report for the Statewide Survey
files should be submitted to the State Archives.
Response: A hard copy of the final report will be submitted to SCDAH along with state
survey forms for each facility. Copies of the state survey forms have been included in
Appendix A.
Comment 2. Identify the proposed boundaries of the surveyed resources on a USGS topographic
map for both Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee.
Response: The proposed boundaries have been noted on Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3.
Comment 3. The Project reservoirs are a very significant resource on the landscape and a
contributing resource to the significance of both the Keowee and Jocassee developments.
Response: The FERC- approved study plan specifically references evaluation of the
Project structures and not associated landscape features. Based on previous NRHP
evaluations of hydroelectric projects in association with relicensing, the reservoirs are
typically not included as part of the evaluation process.
Comment 4. Identify the specific component of significance of the two properties under
National Register Criterion A. Evaluate significance in the areas of industry and engineering.
Response: The report has been revised to note the properties in the areas of Social
History and Industry. The paragraphs were augmented with the following information:
For paragraph on industry:
...... "For its association with that broader Energy Project, the Keowee - Toxaway
Hydroelectric Project possesses significant associations with patterns of industrial history
as it represents a shift in the electrity industry for independent, but mutually supporting

sources of power. However, these historical associations do not reach the level of
"exceptional significance" as to render them eligible under Criteria Consideration G, for
properties less than 50 years of age."
For paragraph on social history:
...... "Therefore, the Project has a significant association with patterns of social history in
that its early plans incorporated public concerns for the environment and emphasized
corporate stewardship of the area's natural resources. However, these historical
associations do not reach the level of "exceptional significance" as to render them
eligible under Criteria Consideration G, for properties less than 50 years of age."
Comment 5. Duke Energy should provide official correspondence to the SCDAH requesting
concurrence with determinations of eligibility.
Response: Duke Energy will formally request concurrence with the eligibility
determinations provided in this report. While Duke Energy agrees with the
recommendation that the Project structures are not eligible for the NRHP, Duke Energy
does not agree the Project structures should automatically be considered eligible for the
NRHP when they become 50 years of age. Duke Energy has revised the report to read,
"The structures will likely meet the criteria for listing once they reach 50 years of age.
Duke Energy will assess the structures (e.g., those licensed under FERC No. 2503) again
at that time to confirm this determination and also to record any changes made in the
interim."
FERC Comments:
Comment 1. Section 1.0, page 1, references a programmatic agreement (PA) executed on May
9, 2007 for Duke Energy's Shoreline Management Plan. To avoid confusion, please remove
from the report any reference to this PA.
Response: Deleted all references to the PA.
Comment 2. Revise the area of potential effects (APE) defined in Section 1.0, page 1, as
"Project- related architectural and engineering components" to be consistent with the APE
defined and agreed upon by the Cultural Resources Resource Committee.
Response: The definition of the APE for Project relicensing was clarified on Page 1,
paragraphs 2 and 4, to be consistent with the Cultural Resources RC's previously defined
APE and to note the purpose of this study as defined in the approved study plan was to
evaluate the Project - related structures.

Comment 3. Include the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (South Carolina
SHPO) Historic Resource Forms in Appendix A as stated in Section 1.2, page 2.
Response: Copies of the site survey forms have been included in Appendix A.
Comment 4. Clarify the location of the Keowee powerhouse in relation to the non - Project
Oconee Nuclear Station and its facilities in Section 3.
Response: Deleted directional sentence in first paragraph of Section 3.2.
Comment 5. Revise the Executive Summary and Section 4.0, page 113 to state the Keowee
Development and the Jocassee Development will be 50 -years old in 2021 and 2022,
respectively. With regard to the last phrase, "when the comprehensive Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project will also have reached 50 years of age," the report mistakenly combines relicensing the
Keowee - Toxaway Project with the Oconee Nuclear Station, and identifies it as the Keowee-
Toxaway Energy Project. Please remove Keowee - Toxaway Energy Project from the final report,
including the aforementioned last phrase.
Response: The Executive Summary and Evaluation sections have been revised to reflect
2022 as the collective 50 -year age mark. The reference to the Keowee - Toxaway Energy
Project was deleted from the Executive Summary to avoid confusion, but is still used in
the body of the report as the Keowee - Toxaway Project was part of the larger Keowee-
Toxaway Energy Project that was envisioned to include both hydroelectric and
thermoelectric generating facilities.
Comment 6. Add discussion to Section 4.0, page 113, third paragraph as to whether the
powerhouses possess significance under any of the criteria. Clarify why the transformer yards
identified in this paragraph are not listed in Section 1.0.
Response: The switchyards were added to the associated structures discussion on page 1.
Additionally, "powerhouses (and powerhouse entry for Jocassee)" was added to the list
of functional structures on page 113.

Appendix C
Resume of the Principal Investigator

PATRICIA STALLINGS
PROGRAM MANAGER/SENIOR HISTORIAN
EDUCATION/WORKSHOPS
B.A. in History (1997), North Georgia College
M.A. in History (2002), University of Georgia
Preservation Studies Certificate (2002), University of Georgia
Advanced Section 106 Seminar, Kansas City, Missouri (2008)
Mid- Twentieth Century Architecture Seminar, Atlanta, Georgia (2009)
Applying the NEPA Process, Norcross, Georgia (2009)
Institute for Georgia Environmental Leadership (2009)
Renewable Energy Development: Impacts to Cultural Resources, Austin, Texas (2012)
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Archival Research
Narrative History Preparation
Architectural Documentation and Evaluation
Southern U.S. Agricultural History
Environmental History
Military History
PROFESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS
Southern Historical Association
Agricultural History Society
Company of Military Historians
Georgia Historical Society
Board of Directors, Barrow Preservation Society (2009 - present)
Historic Preservation Commission, City of Winder, Georgia, (2010 - present)
PROFESSIONAL POSITION
Brockington and Associates, Inc.: History Program Manager, Senior Historian, Senior Architectural Historian (2002 -
present)
Shields- Ethridge Heritage Farm: Volunteer Interpreter /Guide (1998 -2002)
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
2012 Principal Investigator, Mitigation far the Closure of Fort McPherson and Fort Gillem, Prepared with Parsons
Corporation for the U.S. Department of the Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
2012 History of the Southeastern PowerAdministration, 9990 -2090. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the
Southeastern Power Administration (in drag.
2012 Co- Author. History of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, South Atlantic Division. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, South Atlantic Division and Mobile District (in drag.
2011 Principal Investigator, Mitigation for the Charles E. Kelly Support Facility, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Prepared with Parsons Corporation for the C.E. Kelly Support Facility and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District.
2011 with Scott Butler
Cultural Resources Survey of the Sullivan's Island Elementary School Tract, Charleston County, South Carolina. Prepared
for Cummings and McCrady, Inc. and the Charleston County School District.

2011 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed SK43 Alternatives, Hancock and Pearl River
Counties, Mississippi. Prepared for ABMB, Inc. and the Mississippi Department of Transportation (multi -phase
project, ongoing).
2011 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Assessments offave U.S. Army Reserve Centers in the States of Vermont,
Pennsylvania, and rest Virginia. Prepared for Ageiss, Inc., the 991h Regional Support Command, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
2011 Principal Investigator, Architectural Survey of 28 US Army Reserve Centers in the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas
and New Mexico. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the 63rd Regional Support
Command.
2011 Principal Investigator, Architectural Survey and Inventory of the Newport Chemical Depot, Vermillion County, Indiana.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the Newport Chemical Depot.
2011 History of the Captured Enemy Ammunition and Coalition Munitions Clearance Program, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (in review).
2011 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Study of the York Haven Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1888), York,
Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties, Penn ylvania. Prepared for the York Haven Power Company, LLC.
2010 Archival and Photographic Documentation of the Former Clarksville Base Nuclear Storage Site, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District and the Department of the Army, Fort
Campbell, Kentucky.
2010 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan of the Anniston Army Depot, Calhoun County, Alabama. Update 2010-
2015. Prepared for the Anniston Army Depot and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District).
2010 "Point Peter and Georgia's Forgotten Role in the War of 1812." Presentation for the Society for Historical
Archaeology Annual Conference. Amelia Island, Florida, January 2010.
2010 Cultural Resources Assessment far Base Realignment and Closure Actions (BRAG) at the Camp Kilmer U.S. Army Reserve
Center in Edison, New Jersey. Prepared for Ageiss, Inc. and the 99th Regional Support Command, Fort Dix, New
Jersey.
2010 Cultural Resources Assessment for Base Realignment and Closure Actions (BRAG at the North Penn U.S. Army Reserve
Center in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Ageiss, Inc. and the 99th Regional Support Command, Fort Dix,
New Jersey.
2009 with Edward G. Salo
One Door to the Carps: Historical Update of the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, 1998 -2007.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville.
2009 "From Shermans to Strykers: The Historical Narrative as Creative Mitigation." Presentation for the Sustaining
Military Readiness Conference. Phoenix, Arizona, August 2009.
2008 with David M. Franz
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Middletown Armed Forces Reserve Center, Middlesex County, Connecticut.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
2008 with William M. Brockenbrough
HABS Documentation of the Granite Hill Plantation, Hancock County, Georgia. Prepared for Erdene Materials
Corporation, Palm City, Florida.
2008 with C. Scott Butler and Andrew A. Pappas
Cultural Resources Investigation and Evaluation of the Rockingham Farms Tract, Chatham County, Georgia. Prepared for
the Rockingham Investment Group, LLC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
2008 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Investigations for the Tupelo Railroad Relocation Project, Lee County, Mississippi.
Prepared for HDR One Company, Orlando, Florida and the Mississippi Department of Transportation.
2008 Photographic Documentation of the LANCE Missile Fueling Facility. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District and the Anniston Army Depot.
2008 with Katherine Knapp and Thomas G. Whitley
Intensive Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Briar Patch (Southern Cross Ranch)
Property, L umpkin County Georgia. Submitted to Register- Nelson, Inc.

2007 From Sherman to Strykers: Industrial Maintenance at the Anniston Army Depot, 9940 -2007. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the Anniston Army Depot.
2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Buck Station Combined Cycle Project, Rowan County, North Carolina.
Prepared for Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC and Duke Energy Carolinas.
2007 Principal Investigator, Historic Structures Review of Twenty Facilities for the Missouri Army National Guard (statewide).
Prepared for the Missouri Army National Guard.
2007 Historic Properties Management Plan for the Lake Blackshear Hydroelectric Project (FERC #639), Crisp, Dooly, Lee,
Sumterand forth Counties Georgia. Prepared for the Crisp County Power Commission.
2007 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Greenville Connector, Washington and Bolivar
Counties, Mississippi. Prepared for ABMB Engineers, Inc. and the Mississippi Department of Transportation.
2007 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility Conveyance
Corridors, Douglas County, Kansas. Prepared for Black and Veatch Corporation.
2007 Intensive Architectural Survey and Cold WarAssessment of the Anniston Army Depot, Calhoun County, Alabama.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the Anniston Army Depot.
2007 Historic Properties Management Plan for the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2237), Cobb and Fulton Counties,
Georgia. Prepared for the Georgia Power Company.
2006 Principal Investigator, Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Lawrence Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Douglas County, Kansas. Prepared for Black and Veatch Corporation and the City of Lawrence, Kansas.
2006 NRHP Evaluation of the Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2206), Anson, Montgomery, Richmond and Stanly
Counties, North Carolina. Prepared for Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
2005 Morgan Falls Project: 900 Years of Energy. Historic Hydra - Engineering Report (FERC #2237), Cobb and Fulton Counties,
Georgia. Prepared for the Georgia Power Company.
2005 Intensive Architectural Survey of Three Buildings at New Century USARTC, New Century Airfield, Johnson County, Kansas..
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the 88th Regional Readiness Command.
2005 with Jeffrey W. Gardner and Thomas G. Whitley
Cultural and Historic Context: Former SpencerAriillery Range, Bledsoe, Sequatchie, Van Buren and Warren Counties,
Tennessee. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
2005 with Elizabeth Fuller
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Cedartown to Aragon Transmission lane, Polk County, Georgia. Prepared for
the Georgia Power Company.
2005 with Thomas G. Whitley and Michael Reynolds
Intensive Architectural Survey of the Anniston Army Depot, Calhoun County, Alabama. Prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.
2004 with Alex Sweeney and Thomas G. Whitley
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey: Training Areas S4 and S3, and S3 Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Clay County
Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the Anniston Army Depot.
2004 with David Diener
HABSIHAER Documentation of the U.S. Route 23 Bridge over the Saluda River, Greenwood, Laurens, and Abbeville
Counties, South Carolina. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Transportation.
2004 with Elizabeth L. Fuller and Jeffrey W. Gardner
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Transmission Line from South Hall to Clermont Junction, and Phase II
Archaeological Testing of the Buffington House, Hall County, Georgia. Prepared for the Georgia Power Company.
2004 with David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Dawson Crossing to South Dahlonega Transmission Line, Dawson and Lumpkin
Counties, Georgia. Prepared for Georgia Power Company.
2004 with John Beaty and Bruce G. Harvey
Intensive Architectural Survey of Selected Facilities, 89r' Regional Support Command- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississppi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Prepared for EEG, Inc., Charleston, South Carolina.
2003 with Bobby Southerlin, Dawn Reid and Jeffrey W. Gardner

Initial Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Lake Blackshear Pr yect (FERC #659), Crisp, Dooly, Lee, Sumter and Wlorth
Counties, Georgia. Prepared for the Crisp County Power Commission and Framatome ANP, Inc.
2003 with Jeffrey W. Gardner, Connie Huddleston and Thomas G. Whitley
Reconnaissance Survey, Archaeological Testing, and Intensive Mapping of the Historic Rosmell Mill (9FU205), Fulton County,
Georgia. Prepared for the City of Roswell, Georgia.