Version control system tools empower developers to independently work on their development tasks. These tools also facilitate the integration of changes through merging operations, and report textual conflicts. However, when developers integrate their changes, they might encounter other types of conflicts that are not detected by current merge tools. In this paper, we focus on detecting dynamic semantic conflicts, which occur when a merging scenario does not lead to textual conflicts but results in undesired interference---causing unexpected program behavior at runtime. To address this issue, we propose a lightweight technique that explores the use of static analysis to detect interference when merging contributions from two developers. We evaluate our technique using a dataset of 99 experimental units we curated from merge scenarios of GitHub projects. The results provide evidence that our technique presents significant interference detection capability. It outperforms, in terms of F1-score and recall, techniques that rely on testing-based analysis, but these show better precision. Our technique precision is comparable to the ones observed in other studies that leverage static analysis or theorem proving to detect semantic conflicts, albeit with significantly improved execution performance. Our technique often takes less than a minute to analyze a merge scenario, while other static and dynamic analysis techniques often take tens of minutes or hours to complete the same task.