I believe the Gasil comment is ill-informed and a red herring.
However, I am concerned that the legislation mentions urine testing.
Presumably, the justification for testing is to determine impairment (of function). Yet the levels set for alcohol are at the "zero tolerance" level i.e. not simple impairment.
This is an important distinction, for example, Urine testing does not determine impairment. Hence it is possible for both breathe and blood testing to be negative, whilst urine may test positive.
Hence a urine test would not make a suitable primary or confirmatory test for alcohol impairment in court.
Note also that "drugs" are not defined, nor is any level set for drugs. This is potentially very worrying. If "zero tolerance" levels were set for "drugs" too (probably including some legal over the counter drugs) then many individuals would test positive many days after imbibing. There are so many problems with this, that it may make treatment, rehabilitation and return to duty of any individual problematic.