EP Electric has identified two new methods to treat its cooling water. Alternative I (for inflow) would treat the raw water with a conventional reverse osmosis system so that the cycles of concentration could be increased from 5 to 20. This will result in water cost savings of exist360,000 per year and chemical cost savings of exist56,000 per year. The initial cost of the equipment will be exist2.3 million with an operating cost of exist125,000 per year. Alternative B (for blowdown) will treat the cooling tower blowdown water using a high-pressure seawater reverse osmosis system to recover most of the water that is sent to an evaporation pond. This option will result in water savings of exist270,000 per year. The cost of the system will be exist1.2 million with an operating cost of exist105,000 per year. Assuming one of the two methods must be installed, determine which is preferred on the basis of the incremental ROR value using MARR of 5% per year, which is a typically low return expected of government projects. Use a 10-year study period with no salvage value for either system