: Pulp and paper wastewater (P&P WW) often requires tertiary treatment to remove refractory compounds not eliminated by conventional biological treatment, ensuring compliance with high-quality effluent discharge or reuse standards. This study employs a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to compare alternative tertiary treatment technologies for P&P WW and rank them accordingly. The evaluated technologies in the scenarios include inorganic (S1) and organic (S2) coagulation-flocculation, ozonation (O3) (S3), O3+granular activated carbon (GAC) (S4), and ultrafiltration (UF)+reverse osmosis (RO) (S5). The analysis focuses on a P&P wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Northeastern Italy. The LCA is complemented by an economic analysis considering each technology's capital and operating costs, as well as potential revenues from internal effluent reuse. Results indicate that S4 (O3+GAC) outranks all the other scenarios in terms of both environmental performance and economic viability, primarily due to the advantages associated with effluent reuse. S5 (UF+RO), which also involves reuse, is limited by the high energy consumption of UF+RO, resulting in increased environmental impacts and costs. The physicochemical scenario S2 (Chem Or), currently utilized in the WWTP under study, remains the best-performing technology in the absence of effluent reuse. In contrast, S3 (O3 alone) exhibits the poorest environmental and economic outcomes due to substantial energy requirements for O3 generation and the inability to reuse the treated effluent directly. Lastly, a sensitivity analysis underscores the strong influence of chemical dosages in S1 and S2 on environmental and economic impacts, which is more significant than the impact of water reuse percentages in S4 and S5. The high electricity cost observed during 2022 negatively affects the energy-intensive scenarios (S3-S5), making coagulation-flocculation (S1-S2) even more convenient.
