Not really, the current environmental safeguards on mining practices are effective (at least out west), and there is plenty of low-sulfur coal production in the numerous mines in wide-open Wyoming. Yes, WY mines are primarily strip mines, but the reclamation laws insure that all the land will be eventually returned to a natural state, which on the WY plains is grassland and easily replicated in a short time. IIRC, CO mines are underground. As to the air, previously passed requirements of coal scrubbers on all new plants, combined with the use of low-sulfur coal, pretty much shoot down the air quality arguments against building new plants.
While I agree that nuclear is the cleanest, and Yucca Mtn a good solution for waste disposal, a terrorist attack on a coal plant doesn't run the risk of a massive radiation release. A nuke plant does, albeit a remote risk, hence I would be against building any more plants in heavily urbanized areas. 100 miles out of town? Sure, let's build those.
A train traveling through a town is riskier to the population than a nuclear station. If the station can meet its evacuation requirements (i.e. the current regulations now and with projected growth), there should be no limit to the distance a station is built from a city.
(I am dismissing apocolyptic nuclear fetishists supposing a wasted area comparable to that produced by Chernobyl.)
Risk is a probability x consequence.