Yes!
Your question points to one of the many ironies of the the nuclear industry. This industry is struggling very hard against public opinion which is mostly against using nuclear power plants, although many studies suggests that these plants are better for the environment than coal burning plants.
Maybe it was in an effort to change public opinion, when a study was made by McBride et al. (1978) targeting this issue, and they did it well using that anecdote -
That article suggests that Americans living near nuclear power plant are exposed to less radioactive radiation doses than those living near a coal-fired power plant.
The coal ash includes many radioactive elements and also fertile materials that can be bred into nuclear fuels by absorption of neutrons. Nuclear plants are better handled, and strict laws forbid (almost) any release of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment. Therefore, there is more radioactive radiation near a coal plant than near a nuclear plant.
reference:
J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants", Science Magazine, 1978