KLT-40S reactor is the same type of PWR used on Taymyr-class icebreakers. So it makes little difference if an icebreaker or a floating nuclear power plant passes through international waters. Also, small naval PWRs like this one are safer than a full scale nuclear powerplant, of which many are scaled up naval power plants.<p><a href="https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21726058-floating-reactors-are-their-way-submarine-ones-may-follow-atomic-power" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217260...</a><p><a href="https://www.economist.com/node/17647651" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/node/17647651</a><p><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/09/john-mccain/navys-record-unblemished/" rel="nofollow">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/...</a>
Water is great at containing radiation, to the point that you can safely swim at the top of radioactive cooling pools (just don't go too deep). Should something go wrong, scuttling the boat is a much better containment method than what is possible on land. There are issues with debris escaping from the vessel however - but the problem is much simpler than on land.
<i>"The nuclear power plant has two KLT-40S reactor units that can generate up to 70 MW of electric energy and 50 Gcal/hr of heat energy during its normal operation," Rosatom said. "This is enough to keep the activity of the town populated with 100,000 people."</i><p>I'm glad there's no fuel in it while they're towing it from St. Petersburg to Murmansk.