The issue of blank nodes in RDF standards and implementations is extremely thorny. Focusing on your question:
First, (and as Michael states in his answer) for RDF Graphs, the issue is fairly unambiguous; when merging RDF graphs...
If the graphs in the set have no blank nodes in common, then the union of the graphs is a merge; if they do share blank nodes, then it is the union of a set of graphs that is obtained by replacing the graphs in the set by equivalent graphs that share no blank nodes.
So blank nodes cannot appear in merged RDF graphs taken together. Now:
Can a blank node appear in several named graphs?
The most authoritative source for named graphs (being a W3C Recommendation) is SPARQL, and from my reading of SPARQL, the answer is yes. There is a lot of subtext to the contrary, but nothing explicitly says that the same blank-node cannot appear in several named graphs—there is no formal relationship between a named graph and an RDF graph, although allowing named graphs to refer to individual merged RDF graphs is used as an example (see Example 2). Many people might implement a one-to-one mapping between RDF graphs and named graphs, but this is not writ anywhere in stone. As Toby points out, some engines might find it useful to have the same blank-node in different named graphs.
Now that named graphs can share blank-nodes, the next question might be:
If a blank node appears in two different named graphs, does it refer to the same thing?
The answer is possibly, but not necessarily: the SPARQL spec is deliberately vague on the topic, and it should not, in general, be assumed that they do refer to the same thing (although in practice, they can and often do).
(Note that according to RDF semantics, a blank-node is an existential variable that cannot refer to anything, but that's a different matter...)