Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1, 34, from Swansea, had been missing since the collapse in February. His body was found on Wednesday and workers who carried out the search formed a guard of honour as it was driven from the site in the early hours of the morning. NAME_2, 57, and NAME_3, 61, both from Rotherham, remain missing. The body of a fourth man, NAME_4, 53, from Brotton, Teesside, was previously recovered from the site. Swansea East MP NAME_5, who has been involved with the family since the incident, said they still did not know all the facts about the collapse. She said: "I feel very sad. My heart and my prayers go out to the family who have waited desperately for NAME_6's body to be found. They can finally have closure, and say goodbye to him and grieve his loss. "But let's not forget that there's two other

Summary:
1. The body of a man whose body was found at the site of the Swansea Bay Power Station collapse has been removed from the site.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
