It doesn't have integers to store.
JavaScript's numbers can do everything doubles can; but if the compiler can prove that all values that a particular variable could possibly take on will fit in a smaller type, then it can use that. So a variable really can end up stored as an integer--or never stored anywhere for that matter, like if a loop gets unrolled and the counter is optimized out.
The bitwise operators behave as if integers are 32-bit two's complement. The typed arrays are also two's complement. A smart developer can write code that a smart compiler will compile to bitwise operations on actual physical 32-bit integers.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
https://v8project.blogspot.com/2017/09/elements-kinds-in-v8....
Most C programmers would be too scared to perform bitwise operations on doubles and JS doesn't add anything that makes it safer.
The problem happens when you treat numbers one way and they are treated differently elsewhere. For example -0 when undergoing a bitwise +/- check (val & (1U<<31)) will appear positive when its negative by definition.
The cast to an integer prior to the bitwise operator looses information. You can use the operators safely if you know there is no information to be lost, but it is not type checked like with C. I will say at least JavaScript guarantees twos compliment. You never know when your favourite compiler will decide to break your code in the name of a faster benchmark - correctness of existing programs be damned. Implementation defined used to mean do something sane, but I digress.
((int)dblval) & flag
would require serious justification in a C code review. In JS its all you have. Under those restrictions I'd use it as rarely as possible. But yes you can use it correctly if you try.
Javascript only has doubles so you can't even bit twiddle if you wanted - C programmers can't even imagine.