What they've fiiguredf out how to do is burn spent fuel rods using a tokamak-like process.
Actually, the article doesn't say much about whether they've figured out anything at all.
One might assume that the researchers have attempted to relate in "popular press" baby talk something that they believe is of significance, and one might allow for a "physics-impaired" news reporter adding some additional "pandering to illiteracy" to further dilute the science so as not to offend anyone; but what is described simply doesn't work as described.
From the article alone, it's equally likely that a class assignment (sophomores at MIT or Georgia Tech, but maybe at Masters level at Harvard) resulted in a well written paper that the prof thought worth passing on to get rid of the pesky reporter.
There is nothing new in this report relative to the production of high neutron fluxes in a number of devices associated with attempts to produce power from fusion, including containment fields that are tokamak or otherwise derived. The article makes no mention of using "fusion" for the net production of power, and it is not clear that the device "sort of" described requires any fusion reaction. Plasma temperature alone can produce the neutrons needed.
There is nothing new in this report relative to using neutron bombardment to produce continued fission in otherwise "spent" fission reactor fuel to further deplete its radioactivity. This has been an "accepted concept" for decades, but has not progressed due - among other things - to the difficulties associated with producing high enough neutron fluxes economically.
It is NOT TRUE, as implied in the article, that forcing the fission reaction to continue in spent fission reactor fuel by bombardment with neutrons from a separate source renders the fuel "incinerated" to something inert. Most of the "end products" of such a forced reaction retain significant "contaminant effect" so "highly depleted uranium" is not much less toxic than "commercial depleted uranium" in common (and often careless) "industrial use."
It IS TRUE, but not mentioned in the article, that high-flux neutron bombardment can render many other materials "radioactive" and a very large part of the fission reactor contamination is from structural parts made "reactive" (and structurally demolished) by the neutrons produced in the fission process. Additional neutron bombardment is unlikely to "decontaminate" these kinds of waste.
The entire point of the article apparently was:
The crucial invention that would pave the way for a CFNS is called the Super X Divertor.
Apparently the prof has a new patent (or a license he needs to make a profit on), but the device that is named as being the key subject of the article is NOT DESCRIBED, and only one "opinion" is given stating (without explanation, arguments, or proof) that it's "important."
It's a nice enough article, and its release is commended since "the public needs to be informed(?);" but as far as describing any cause for joy or claims of enlightenment, I'm afraid I must see it as more "fluff and nonsense" from the University's advertising (they probably call it "Innovation Applications Stimulation") department.
One must keep reading this things, since there is a cumulative effect; but suspending critical judgement because the writer uses "the right buzz-words" is not conducive to getting a positive cumulative effect.